Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Reason Roundup

FBI Raids Mar-a-Lago, Fueling Claims of Political Persecution

Plus: Anti-piracy ads made people want to pirate, new IRS agents could fill a football stadium, and more...

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 8.9.2022 9:55 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
FBI agents outside Mar-a-Lago | Michele Eve Sandberg/MEGA / Newscom
(Michele Eve Sandberg/MEGA / Newscom)

Republicans have rediscovered skepticism of FBI power following a Monday raid of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida.

Many questions remain about both the origins or purpose of the raid.

It does not mean Trump will necessarily be charged with a crime, though it does make this possibility seem more likely. Getting and executing this search warrant is "hugely, historically significant," writes lawyer Ken "Popehat" White. "The feds do not seek search warrants lightly. It's a very major commitment to the case, an indication that they believe they have evidence that they think may well lead to indictment." White added that "the very unlikely (Trump being charged) has become fully plausible."

Trump was the one who first announced the raid happening, in a statement calling it "prosecutorial misconduct, the weaponization of the Justice System, and an attack by Radical Left Democrats who desperately don't want me to run for President in 2024."

Since then, a number of news sources have reported that the raid was related to allegations that Trump took classified documents from the White House and was storing them at Mar-a-Lago. But no one is sure, and it could be related to other crimes that Trump—or even someone else—has been accused of.

Taking classified documents is indeed a crime, but it's a crime that's rarely prosecuted unless the documents are given to a third party, leading some legal experts to suggest that there must be more to the raid than concerns about classified documents being kept at Mar-a-Lago. "It's hard for me to believe Merrick Garland would authorize FBI agents to obtain a search warrant solely to find classified material, given that mishandling that material rarely results in a case that DOJ would charge," tweeted former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.

Some have pointed to a clause in the law against mishandling classified documents that says someone convicted "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States." But as UCLA law school professor Rick Hasen notes at the Election Law Blog, "that statute cannot trump the Constitution, which sets the exclusive qualifications for President. So this is not a path to making Trump legally ineligible to run for office."

With all the possible reasons why the feds might be raiding Mar-a-Lago—related to Trump's fake electors plan or his conduct on January 6, for starters—one needn't reach right away for explanations involving FBI corruption. It's no secret that we have little love for the FBI here at Reason, and the raid could well turn out to be conducted under a politicized pretense, but for now we don't really know what's going on.

In order for the raid to be ordered, the FBI would have had to have gotten a federal search warrant, and convincing a judge to issue one requires particular evidence and parameters. "Federal magistrate judges tend to require relatively thorough, specific, and well-documented applications, as opposed to state judges, who will generally sign a warrant that looks like something Gary Busey blew out of his nose after Fourth of July weekend," tweeted White. And "proceeding with a search on a former president's home would almost surely have required sign-off from top officials at the bureau and the Justice Department," suggests The New York Times.

Many Republicans have been framing this as an attack on conservatives generally, trying to tell supporters that they could be next. "If they can do it to a former President, imagine what they can do to you," tweeted the House Judiciary GOP account.

On one level, that's silly. There is zero likelihood that the FBI is preparing to start raiding random Republicans' homes. Conversely, the fact that a former president isn't above the law if he did do something wrong should not be upsetting to anyone. ("As a constitutional matter, DOJ's bold action is important as a message to future presidents that even though other guardrails of presidential accountability have failed, the criminal justice system still works, so…don't try to use the massive powers of the office to morph this country into an authoritarian basketcase," suggests Kimberly Wehle at The Bulwark.)

Right. This is the whole theory behind "no one is above the law." It's a very important tenant of liberal democracy. pic.twitter.com/nVGgOrLylU

— Sarah Longwell (@SarahLongwell25) August 9, 2022

But the FBI does have way too much power, it carries out operations on way too many questionable premises (hello, drug war), and it is certainly politicized in some ways. There are countless examples throughout history of the FBI monitoring, investigating, and harassing people for fighting for civil rights, protesting government action, or simply being different in a way that powerful people found suspicious. And the whims of a given administration—like the Obama-era obsession "fighting sex trafficking" by arresting sex workers—certainly influence FBI actions and priorities.

Alas: While it's exciting to see Republicans call to "defund the FBI" or "destroy the FBI," we know from experience that GOP skepticism of federal law enforcement tends to last only as long as it's politically advantageous.

a based republic is when I punish my political enemies. A banana republic is when my political enemies punish me

— CJ Ciaramella (@cjciaramella) August 9, 2022

The bottom line: We shouldn't let former leaders get away with whatever they want just because the optics of investigating them looks bad. But there better be something bigger here than simply taking some documents.


FOLLOWUP

In case you're having a hard time conceptualizing all the new IRS agents that will be hired as a result of the "inflation reduction" bill that passed the Senate yesterday:

People are so used to the gov't dealing in big numbers it's hard to get perspective

The Democrats just handed the IRS 6X their annual budget to more than double their workforcehttps://t.co/cqLZb3xYi6

— PoIiMath (@politicalmath) August 8, 2022

A number of people who've lived through IRS audits have been responding to rhetoric suggesting that audits should be no big deal for people who haven't committed tax fraud.

"As someone who has been audited by the IRS twice, all of this 'If you did nothing wrong, it's no big deal' stuff is infuriating," tweeted The Dispatch's Jonah Goldberg. "I'd love to ask some of these people saying 'unless you're a criminal, you have no reason to worry' what they think of stop-and-frisk laws or no-knock warrants."

"Yes, the IRS needs to be able to audit people, but you shouldn't pretend that one of the biggest invasions of privacy imaginable by the federal government is fine, fun, or cost-free if you've 'done nothing wrong.' Particularly if you haven't been audited yourself," he concluded.

"We got caught up in the wave of adoption audits during the Obama administration," added David French. "In 2011 the IRS audited 68 percent of tax returns of families claiming adoption tax credits. It was incredibly frustrating, stressful, and time-consuming. For nothing."

For more on the Inflation Reduction Act, see:

  • "The Inflation Reduction Act Won't Meaningfully Address the Budget Deficit"
  • "There's Nothing Legacy-Defining About the Inflation Reduction Act"
  • "The Democrats' New Inflation Bill Includes Tax Credits for Electric Vehicles That Don't Exist"
  • "Democrats' Rejection of Permit Streamlining Resolution Doesn't Bode Well for Joe Manchin's 'Side Deal'"

FREE MINDS

Can local news be saved? Poynter reports:

More than 360 U.S. newspapers closed between late 2019 and May 2022, according to an updated report by local news guru and Northwestern University professor Penny Abernathy, and 40 of the 100 largest dailies don't publish a print edition seven days a week. In 2006, there were an estimated 75,000 journalists working in newsrooms. As of last year, that number had dwindled to less than 30,000.

But the fact is that local news is not so much dying as reinventing itself. This is happening with local newspapers, which are turning more and more to membership, community engagement and outside funding to further their missions. But it's also happening with a slew of new products adding yet another option to the local news landscape.


FREE MARKETS

Anti-piracy ads made people want to pirate movies. A study published in The Information Society looked at how anti-piracy ads—particularly a widespread ad from 2004 that tried to convince people that downloading movies illegally was the same as stealing cars—may have backfired. "In fact, the study found that by hugely overstating the negative impact of piracy, the ad may have caused people to pirate even more," Vice reports.

In addition to overstating the problem—thus prompting mockery and leading people to not take them seriously—the ads failed by stressing how common piracy was. "Given that individuals tend to conform to perceived social norms, they can be leveraged to nudge people toward a given behavior," says the paper. "Informing directly or indirectly individuals that many people pirate is counterproductive and encourages piracy by driving the targeted individuals to behave similarly."


QUICK HITS

• The FDA is still harassing distillers who made hand sanitizer in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

•  "If you think God doesn't like it when people look at porn, just say that. Don't lie about it being a 'public health emergency,'" writes Cathy Reisenwitz.

• Mobile homes are a crucial source of affordable housing—that politicians keep trying to zone out of their areas.

• RIP Olivia Newton John.

Olivia Newton-John was the coolest. She went from 70s heartbreak ballads to 80s black-leather sex-goth synth-pop. She could do it all & she never sounded phony.

My tribute to a childhood fave I never stopped adoring. Thanks for your life, ONJ. https://t.co/r8inKRT3zK

— rob sheffield (@robsheff) August 9, 2022

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Mobile Homes Are a Crucial Source of Affordable Housing. Politicians Are Trying To Zone Them Out of Town.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

Reason RoundupDonald TrumpFBIBiden AdministrationCorruptionLaw enforcementPoliticsCriminal Justice
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (694)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Republicans have rediscovered skepticism of FBI power...

    Just pretend the former president is a terrorist or terrorist-adjacent person.

    1. Social Justice is neither   3 years ago

      Alternate headline "Democrats rediscover the Joy's of abusing police powers and I'm all for it"

      1. mad.casual   3 years ago

        "The Party That Opposed The Deep State That I Pretended Didn't Exist Gets A Taste Of My Own Medicine"

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          "Rules don't matter when my tribe has enough power."

          1. eva21foster   3 years ago

            I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even (avt-11) realisable but my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
            .
            ---------->>> https://smartpay241.blogspot.com

        2. con_fuse9   3 years ago

          Wait, wasn't it Trumplicans that wanted to "lock her up" for misusing classified documents?

          But if you ask for Congressional oversight (a hearing in which the FBI can explain why they did what they did) then yeah, I'm for it.

          1. jimc5499   3 years ago

            Funny how the Clinton and Obama Presidential Libraries have a section for classified documents, while Trump doesn't have a library. Past President's have a "security clearance" for life. Depending on the contents of the documents and the security of their storage it isn't unusual for past Presidents to have documents that may be considered "classified".

          2. DesigNate   3 years ago

            It was a fair bit more than “misusing classified documents”. But then you knew that.

          3. Slick Will   3 years ago

            Yeah, because we all know how much congressional hearings actually accomplish

          4. retiredfire   3 years ago

            The president has ultimate authority to declassify anything.
            All Trump has to d is say he declassified everything, and he's off the hook for mishandling them.
            And what he had, had already been gone through by the FIBbers, and had been fortified, with a new lock, at the suggestion of said FIBbers, which they broke in the illegal incursion into his property.
            HiLIARy was never president, so she couldn't have made any of the national secrets she laid bare for any two-bit hacker to obtain, declassified.
            And one of Trump's first moves was to say he didn't want the Hildebeest prosecuted.
            The communists didn't mind him making that request to the AG.

          5. mad.casual   3 years ago

            Wait, wasn't it Trumplicans that wanted to "lock her up" for misusing classified documents?

            Right. After Comey's FBI asked for documents as part of the investigation, Clinton refused to provide them, the FBI discovered she destroyed them and said she was guilty but that no AG would prosecute her. Not because she was actively sharing documents with the National Archives. Thanks for reminding us how much more actually criminal Clinton was.

      2. Ted   3 years ago

        I’ve been saying for years here that the democrat party is not compatible with our constitutional republic, and needs to go. How many are now willing to accept this immutable fact?

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          Agreed.

          And I hear that most Democrats agree too, at least about how constitutional republic is not compatible with their vision.

          1. Ted   3 years ago

            It’s time to show them the door.

    2. damikesc   3 years ago

      I love that she thinks they JUST rediscovered skepticism. Given that there is little BUT skepticism of them and has been the case for years.

      Chris Wray should be hanging at a gas station.

      1. VULGAR MADMAN   3 years ago

        Her bubble is impenetrable.

      2. Overt   3 years ago

        Right.

        This is the most nonsensical lede from Reason in a LOOOOONG time.

        Just in the past two years, the Republican House Judiciary members have chronicled whistleblower complaints about the FBI targeting parents who protest at school board meetings, and that the FBI has been internally purging any conservative leaning agents. They also had questions about the FBI's raid on Project Veritas, and the prosecution of Gov Whitman's "assassins".

        Prior to that, Republicans of course complained about and investigated FBI shenanigans regarding the Steele Dossier and Russia Hoax. They also were deeply suspicious of how the FBI treated its investigation into the hacking of Hillary Clinton's Email Server, and how they have slow played Hunter Biden's laptop.

        Now, if there is a story here about people "suddenly caring", it is probably that Reason suddenly gives a fuck about the FBI bringing its powers against conservatives, after over 6 years of conservatives complaints. As near as I can tell, Soave gave a single mention of the Veritas Raid on a morning lynx. Other than the initial letter from Garland, they have had no further coverage of the FBI's investigations of parents protesting at school boards. And their coverage of the Russia Hoax has been almost bizarrely fixated on avoiding the discussions of the FBI's specific abuses against The Orange Man. Probably the only story that has gotten reasonable coverage has been the prosecution of Gov Whitman's would-be assassins. That received a couple articles AFTER the case collapsed and the men were acquitted.

        I think it is fair to question whether the Republicans actually care about a restrained FBI when their ox isn't being gored. But that isn't the accusation being made by ENB (or the editor writing this headline). They are arguing that the Republicans only now care about FBI abuse, when they have been screaming about it for the better part of 6 years.

        Now either the writer of that headline is lying about Republicans "suddenly caring", or they just have never paid enough attention to what Republicans actually say to notice that this has been long coming. I am not sure which of those alternatives is worse.

        1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

          Yeah, pretty sure some very prominent Republicans have been questioning the actions of the FBI since the early 1990s. I seem to remember GHW Bush lecturing his fellow Republicans for not worshipping the state like he did.

          1. Stuck in California   3 years ago

            At the very least, most of us got a really bad taste in our mouths in the 90s what with Richard Jewell, the images of a federal officer pulling that Gonzales kid out of a closet, etc...

            Not a republican, personally, but definitely not a Democrat, so I might not be a good anecdote. It's not just me though. Most of my R or conservative leaning friends have thought the FBI untrustworthy for the whole 21st century.

        2. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   3 years ago

          And then ENB, having glossed over all those problems, latches on to arresting prostitutes under the cover of human trafficking. Priorities!

        3. Dillinger   3 years ago

          >>whether the Republicans actually care about a restrained FBI when their ox isn't being gored

          Cocaine Mitch equally pleased w/tha Raid.

          1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

            Maybe Trump isn't his ox.

            1. Dillinger   3 years ago

              exactly.

            2. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

              That's pretty certain. Mitch is an old school, go along to get along, weak willed, country club Republican, who feels the party is slipping away from his grasp, because of people like Trump, De Santos, Cruz etc. He reacted the same way to Cruz and others who were elected in the Tea Party Wave, which I argue is also how Trump, De Santos, Noom etc came to win their elections.

              When historians write about this in future generations, they'll be able to trace the growth of the current Republican culture to at least the disconnect between Republican base voters and the technocratic Neo-conservattives that became increasingly apparent in 2006. However, I believe you can trace it back to the 1980 (maybe even earlier) primary that pitted the epitomy of the technocratic, club house, Rockefeller Republicans, in GHW Bush, and the growing, working class conservatives, represented by Ronald Reagan (albeit, the difference was less obvious then they are today). The party bosses have tried, successfully, to get the former nominated every time since 1988 until 2016, and have been successful in placating the latter, simply because the Democrats have increasingly become even less of an alternative in the minds of the latter. McCain's and, even more so, Romney's nominations, however, I think destroyed the parties bosses ability to placate what has increasingly become their base. That's the thing about political realignments, it doesn't only impact one party, it impacts all of them. And, as with all realignments, there is resistance from those that have managed and directed the parties for decades.

              1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

                It's quite possible it started with the conformity of the 1950s and the very real pushback of this in the 1960s and the nomination of Goldwater, and well, Reagan and, for that matter Trump, weren't exactly the champions of individualism the movement desired, they, and Goldwater, both were the signs of the growing discontent in the base, who probably couldn't really articulate their desires, but felt them instinctively. They've increasingly have grown better at articulating these desires, mainly because they've began organizing and finding compatriots that voiced similar desires. And, with any movement, the ability to interact has helped to better flesh out their goals, pretending this is a recent occurrence is ignoring the decades of history that has preceded it. It's like arguing that Luther suddenly woke up and discovered the problems inherent in the Papacy, and ignoring all the precious movements and splits within the church, even elections of competing Popes. The media loved to report (and ENB and other Reason writers are equally guilty of this) from their own myopic views of primacy of the present, divorced from historical trends, so they have difficulty grasping that these things never occur in a historical vacuum, but have long, deep, historical roots.

                1. Dillinger   3 years ago

                  all well stated. gracias.

                2. Stuck in California   3 years ago

                  Luther's a very good analogy.

                  Jan Huss said the same things not long before and was burned at the stake for it. Luther was a turning point, but he wasn't alone and nailed his theses to the door at the first moment in history when he could get away with it.

                  There are a lot of fundamentally liberal people who feel disenfranchised and unrepresented these days. The Rs, to me, are only "Not Democrats" in terms of desirability. Democrats moving to hard progressivism has left the individual liberty voters behind as well.

                  Journalism is so uniformly and unflinchingly progressive right now that they definitely can't see the forest through the trees. The mainstream will not pick up on that nuance.

                  1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

                    Yeah, the Emporer was weakening and aging, and the Empire created a much more fertile grounds for the actions than other Western societies at the time.

              2. Roberta   3 years ago

                What about in 1976, Reagan vs. Ford?

                Unlike some observers here and elsewhere, I see 1964 as an enormous setback within the Republicans, where they learned the wrong lesson. Goldwater's campaign did not sow the seeds for future victory; consider that Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Youth. Rather, Goldwater's awful presidential campaign set back the "conservative" and libertarian tendencies enormously in the USA and had echoes in at least the UK and probably other political countries.

                1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

                  It was a sign of the discontent, the seeds were already present. Ford vs Reagan just was demonstrative of that discontent. The argument you use regarding Goldwater could be applied to Reagan, as Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain and Romney all came from the same technocratic, Rockefeller, country club branch of the party, and although they added more of the verbiage, and threw more bones to the, dissatisfied base than pre-Reagan age, it was clear that they didn't embrace these ideals.

                  I think, however, that it's reached critical mass, that the party elites, like Mitch, are the minority (and not even really in control any longer). They thought they could subvert the Tea Party movement to their own designs, and they were successful to a degree, but they were empowering their own replacements. Like the Romans embracing the Germanic tribes, such as the Franks, Goths, Lumbards and Vandals.

                  That's why I believe we're in a true political realignment and quite possibly an inflection in the evolutionary cycle of western culture. The pace of the cycle has noticably increased, but so has the means of communication, which undoubtedly has contribute to the rapidity of the cycle. Which has always been influenced by evolution of communication (roads in Rome, development of postal services, printing press and growth in literacy, telegraph and telephones, etc).

                  1. retiredfire   3 years ago

                    It wasn't that Goldwater's ideas were rejected by the electorate so much as it was that he never stood a change against the man, who was sworn in, standing next to the blood-soaked widow of the martyred JFK.
                    The grieving nation couldn't let the opponents of Camelot win.
                    That his defeat had been used as proof of rejection of conservatism is another of the lies the MSM has promulgated, to the effect that some Republicans make the claim, too.

          2. ravenshrike   3 years ago

            Unlikely. While an insider asshole he's not stupid and he almost certainly realizes that this greatly boosts Trump absent genuinely serious criminality.

            1. Nardz   3 years ago

              Ideally Trump gets elected in 28, goes suicide bomber on the federal government getting it out of our way 29-33, then DeSantis wins in 32 and sees us through the next 8 years.
              Don't see it happening though. But that would be the only slim hope for peace and prosperity.

      3. nobody 2   3 years ago

        In fairness to Brown, she's probably never spoken to a Republican.

    3. Spiritus Mundi   3 years ago

      It is not that hard if you try:

      https://reason.com/2022/08/08/american-revolution-images-might-reveal-you-as-a-violent-extremist-says-the-fbi/

    4. But SkyNet is a Private Company   3 years ago

      REPUBLICANS POUNCE is the first gotdam line of the story

      1. CindyF   3 years ago

        I especially loved this line: "We shouldn't let former leaders get away with whatever they want just because the optics of investigating them looks bad."

        _________

        This should have been prefaced with a "Unless it is a democrat...."

        I'm so old that I remember when crowd chants of "Lock her up" when Trump mentioned Hillary Clinton was considered literally a "threat to our democracy".

    5. JesseAz   3 years ago

      Because this hasn't been a discussion point since 2015 or even earlier for the gop.

      And her assertion it is hard to get warrants is laughable given Trump Russia and the abuses there.

      1. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

        Yes but there will be no repercussions for any of this. None for Trump if he did break the law, and certainly none for armed federal bureaucracies for any blatant political abuses.

        Democrats won't act against the enforcement arm of their central planning and Republicans won't act against big government beyond lip service. Granted, I appreciate at least the lip service but it doesn't do the country any actual good.

        1. retiredfire   3 years ago

          If you think the communists won't indict Trump if they find the slightest premise to do so, I want some of what you're smoking.

    6. MoreFreedom   3 years ago

      I wonder about that "rediscovered skepticism of FBI power" and when it was initially discovered. Was it how Comey let Clinton off the hook and got the DOJ to grant her staff immunity for no testimony against higher ups' crimes involving her illegal email server with classified information on it illegally? Or was it when Kevin Clinesmith doctored an email that was used to defraud the FISA court into spying on Trump? Maybe it occurred way back in the days of uninvestigated Lois Lerner in the IRS abuse? Or do we have to go back to J. Edgar Hoover and his domestic spying on Dr. Martin Luther King?

      1. retiredfire   3 years ago

        Watergate turns out to have been a CIA operation, but Deep
        Throat was a guy, who was passed over for taking J. Edgar's place at the head of the FIBbers and steered the Washington Post towards blaming Nixon for something he had no knowledge of.
        Woodward and Bernstein were happy to go that way, but Mark Felt did it out of spite at Nixon's action.

  2. Nardz   3 years ago

    https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1556989930416484352?t=-ashJFs4LkcUjccANvgDyg&s=19

    Bruce Reinhart who helped Epstein get off and then went on to represent Epstein’s accomplices is THE JUDGE who signed off on the FBI raiding President Trump. If you wrote that into a movie script the studio would laugh at you because it’s such unbelievable corruption.

    1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      They must have video of that guy banging an underage donkey or something.

      1. HorseConch   3 years ago

        As easy as it seems to get a warrant, they are either playing really high-level chess (almost impossible), or they literally have nothing and had to dig up the biggest scumbag judge they can find to rubber stamp the warrant.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

          When the FBI actually accomplishes something substantive, it usually has been the result of multi-year investigations and research, such as Operation Varsity Blues. When they operate off the cuff, such as the Whitmer assassination entrapment scheme, their cases tend to fall apart under real scrutiny.

          So yeah, if what they took turns out to be nothing more than Kim Jong Un's banana bread recipe, they're not only going to come out looking incredibly stupid, the GOP is going to have all the excuse they need to shove a rectal probe up the FBI's ass. If it's stuff like nuclear information, Trump's fucked pretty badly if he didn't cross his dot his Is and cross his Ts, because even an ex-President is going to require certain permissions to have a GSA safe in a secure area to store those.

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

            It's almost like the FBI has a criminal investigation branch and a political prosecution branch.

          2. Cyto   3 years ago

            They already had that. Barr actually took "the FBI framed this guy" to court..... And prosecuted none of them. Did not even investigate Obama et. Al., Despite having contemporaneous notes from Yates that he ordered it.

    2. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

      Correct me but isn't this the same FBI who sought a warrant based on a fake dossier that the FBI knew was filled with lies? And also sought to renew it, despite even more evidence that their investigation wasn't revealing any criminal behavior? And she wants us to believe the FBI never seeks warrants for frivolous reasons, or rarely does? Also, wasn't Trump also the target of the above actions?

      Also, didn't the same FBI refuse to prosecute Hillary Clinton for very similar activities? And wasn't Obama also accused of the same crime when he left office, yet Trump didn't order the FBI to raid his house. Hmmm.

      1. VULGAR MADMAN   3 years ago

        Reason wouldn’t know anything about that.

      2. damikesc   3 years ago

        Let's not sugar coat it.

        The FBI did not just seek them. A federal judge APPROVED them. So, yes, the state will go after inconvenient folks.

        1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

          Both occurred. They sought them, and a judge questionably approved them.

          1. Apollonius   3 years ago

            More accurate to say that a questionable judge approved them.

      3. Ronbback   3 years ago

        There will be charges against Trump even if they have to make up new laws to charge him with at this point. thats what they are doing with all other aspect of his life the last six years

        1. JesseAz   3 years ago

          The novel theories of crimes being used against Trump is completely abhorrent and completely ignored here. The clear and obvious crimes of Hunter are also ignored here. The unequal application of law is open now.

          Remember Schumer threat in 2015 regarding going against the intelligence state.

      4. Cyto   3 years ago

        The same FBI that used 12 informants to uncover 3 "conspirators" in Michigan, two of whom were homeless?

        1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

          The same DoJ who tricked Weaver into selling them an illegal sawed off shotgun, because he refused to become an informant for them, then initiated actions that resulted in a siege of his property and the death of his child and wife.

          1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

            This one had huge impacts on my views of the DoJ and the FBI in particular, not because I agreed with Weaver, or sympathized with his twisted views, but because it occured when I was 14 and was local. It was in every newspaper and local news broadcasting, and reported far differently and more in depth than on the national news. As such it occurred at a point were I was old enough to form my own opinions and to shape my future views. It also left such a deep impact because I had some personal connections to it. Not to Weaver or the FBi or the Aryan Nations, all two dozen of them, but because I had personal connections to Bonners Ferry. My Grandfather's family were the original pioneers of that region and he was born and raised there and it was only 90 miles away, which in most of the the western US (outside the coastal metropolitan regions) is very local.

            1. CLM1227   3 years ago

              I didn’t learn about this or WACO until much later (I was too young when they actually happened). But in learning of them, I can away with the very sour view that Barr is the FBI fixer whose only job is to rehabilitate the image of the FBI, not to hold wrongdoers to account. I think the only one prosecuted out of both those fiascos was the reporter/photographer that tipped off the WACO guys.

      5. MoreFreedom   3 years ago

        "The feds do not seek search warrants lightly. It's a very major commitment to the case, an indication that they believe they have evidence that they think may well lead to indictment."

        Yeah, how does that explain the FISA warrants and renewals to spy upon Trump's campaign, all based on fake allegations paid for by Clinton (via Perkins Coie as legal expenses) that Strozk and Page knew were a bunch of crock. I also have no doubt Comey knew all about his FBI's fraud.

        I also recall Democrats all concerned about "revenge" by Trump having these liars prosecuted for defrauding the USA. Now we see the Democrats taking revenge on Trump, for exposing them as liars, and fighting to keep the Russia Hoax documents Trump ordered declassified, which the deep state so far has successfully resisted. I expect those were the documents they were after, in case Trump leaked them, which he has the legal right to do since he had the power to declassify them and did. Was it a coincidence Judicial Watch filed a FOIA to get those documents, just before this raid?

        As for ENB's "On one level, that's silly. There is zero likelihood that the FBI is preparing to start raiding random Republicans' homes." ENB is ignoring how Democrats have gone after Clarence Thomas, Kavanaugh, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, George Papadopolous, General Flynn, Carter Page and anyone who supported Trump and moved the public opinion needle in ways the Democrats didn't like. While I'm not aware they raided the homes of those targets, they did raid Roger Stone's home. I'd suggest ENB and interested readers, read the Wikipedia entry on Stone, and try to figure out what exactly he did to be prosecuted. What he did, was find a contact in Wikileaks and got and provided a heads up to Trump about future releases from the Wikileaks journalist site. That's apparently a crime, no doubt because it's doing the job the MSM was supposed to do.

      6. con_fuse9   3 years ago

        To be clear, the Dossier wasn't 'fake' it was just filled with unsubstantiated rumors - hardly probable cause and hardly the basis for a search warrant. The problem is the judge is supposed to be the gate keeper, not the rubber stamper. But hey, its a secrete warrant... no one will ever find out about it.
        Besides, its all part of the 'Patriot' act and there is no way you, a patriot, can be against it. Right?

        Once again, any law that is described as 'think of the children' or 'support the troops' or any other such title should automatically be trashed/flushed.

  3. Nardz   3 years ago

    I can't wait until the cunts at Reason feel the consequences for their actions

    1. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   3 years ago

      You mean consequences like their benefactor Charles Koch getting even richer? Koch-funded libertarians are thrilled with the way the Biden Era is going. 🙂

      #LibertariansForBiden

    2. Spiritus Mundi   3 years ago

      You are going to be waiting a long time. That is why people believe in hell. It is so rare to see the assholes in your life get their comeuppance.

      1. Nardz   3 years ago

        Probably true, but we'll see

      2. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

        A good point and the evolution of Christian ideology in regards to government reflects this desire.

        1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

          The reformation was a rejection of the established clerical hierarchy, but rarely rejected secular hierarchies, because it was accepted that this was the natural, ordained order, and that both reward and punishment would occur in the next world. It was only during the enlightenment that we began to see church leaders (most notably in the protestant sects) begin to embrace the idea that far from demanding complacency, that God may actually expect us to act to correct misdeeds of those in power. This change was likely the result of enlightenment ideas of a separation of secular and theological powers. Which meant that the government was no longer in power because God ordained it and they ruled only because they enacted his will, but that government was a creation of man, separate from God's actions. The view that government is ordained by God never has completely diminished, the same as the belief that natural disasters aren't the punishment for disobeying God, mainly because no Christian sect has ever truly settled the debate between strict, Calvinistic predeterminism, vs the Catholic belief of salvation through work (with Lutheranism somewhere in the middle). It should be noted, even prior to the reformation this debate existed within the Catholic Church, and can be seen even in the episcopal gospels.

          1. CLM1227   3 years ago

            +++
            Well reasoned. Great comment. Echoes a lot of my own thought around the reformation.

            1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

              Some of this I think was also the result of the Reformation beginning, and many of it's early thinkers, in the Holy Roman Empire, which had a tradition of revolts not being aimed to overthrow the empire but rather as defense of the imperial constitution (which was more a collection of ideals and precedence rather than a written document) and that the emporer wasn't seen as an all powerful uber monarch, but as prince amongst equal princes, who was elected to deal with maintaining internal and external peace, while the local princes and lords shared power with him at the local level. Therefore, Luther and his compatriots stressed that allegiance to the imperial system was to be honored and obeyed. This was in contrast to the Hussite revolt in Bohemia, which also tried to overthrow the imperial rule in addition to the theological concerns and was backed only by a small number of Hussites, while the majority sought to work within the imperial system to achieve theological liberty. Which also may explain why it failed, and the Bohemian revolt that started the 30 years war also failed to attract strong support from the other Protestant Princes except the elector of Palatine and contrasts with Dutch Republic independence and Swiss Confederacy independence, which didn't sever their relationship completely with the empire (the Dutch independence also differed in that they were declaring independence from the Spanish Hapsburgs, while maintaining that they were still part of the empire even after the partition of the Hapsburg kingdoms after the reign of Charles V).

              I am reading a book on the history of the Holy Roman Empire, and it's government is really interesting and really different compared to any other type of government that we are familiar with. It had traits of a royal monarchy, a royal confederacy and traits of a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary monarchy. The biggest difference is that the emporer was expected not to govern through direct assertion of power but through influence, even after the Emporer became hereditary and dominated by the Hapsburg, this system remained. There was also the insistence of liberty (at least for the nobles) but the concept of liberty was far different than our theory of individual liberty. The closest parallel may be Saxon England, and England after the Magna Carta. Which seems reasonable as they both developed from a similar cultural background.

  4. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    ...a Monday raid of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida.

    FLORIDA MAN IN HOT WATER WITH AUTHORITIES.

    1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   3 years ago

      Jews Gassed in Fake Showers, Fueling Claims of Anti-semitism in the Third Reich (and Camp Incenerators)

  5. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    It's hard for me to believe Merrick Garland would authorize FBI agents to obtain a search warrant solely to find classified material...

    Yes, Democrat administrations rarely weaponize federal law enforcement for political purposes.

    1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      And certainly not the man who authorized the FBI to investigate concerned parents speaking at schoolboard meetings. Perish the thought of him doing something corrupt or politically motivated.

    2. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

      Maybe if Trump had the documents on a special server in his bathroom they would have ignored it.

      1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

        He should have just wiped them clean. You know, with a cloth.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          Like with monkey pox?

    3. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

      I would kiss Mitch McConnell right on his ancient wrinkly ass if I ever had the opportunity. Garland has exposed Obama and Biden for the deep state, police power authoritarians that some of us already knew them to be.

      There is no peace to be had with Democrats. They have no interest in a representative republic. They are ready to shift to a full on one party police state.

    4. Fkthepostoffice   3 years ago

      That's an insane line considering the lengths the FBI has gone to prosecute people for nothing more than standing on the steps of the U.S. Capitol on the wrong day.

  6. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   3 years ago

    "FBI Raids Mar-a-Lago"

    We already have definitive proof Drumpf is a Russian intelligence asset (Mueller Report) who masterminded a HEAVILY ARMED INSURRECTION (1 / 6 hearings). I guess the feds are just putting the finishing touches on their ironclad case.

    #Resist

    1. Ali Akbar Alexander   3 years ago

      Can I just say that when it comes to Hitlery KkkLinton I am all for the walls closing in, but now am not for the walls closing in. Things have changed for this gay GOP Proud Black proud conservative.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Nope.

      2. JesseAz   3 years ago

        You already broke character last night shrike.

    2. Longtobefree   3 years ago

      I am still waiting to find out why there wasn't a gun battle between the brave, dedicated, secret service agents protecting Trump and the invading army of FBI thugs.

  7. Moonrocks   3 years ago

    FBI Raids Mar-a-Lago, Fueling Claims of Political Persecution

    So the FBI goes on a midnight raid of an opposition politician on dubious grounds and the problem is that this might fuel claims of political persecution?

    1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      It really needs to be reiterated that the problem isn't that we're turning into a banana republic, it's that people are complaining about it.

      1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

        The adults are in charge now.

        1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

          Actual the analogy of adults being charge is apt, as any parent (well realistic, decent parent) will tell you, being a parent isn't a participative culture, it's a strictly hierarchal society, with the parents in complete controls only granting liberty on a limited basis. And while these liberties are gradually increased, until the point that the child receives full autonomy, the granting of these liberties is entirely dependent on the parent relinquishing them.

          Whereas our government is supposed to be non hierarchical, participative, with citizens supposedly born with liberty, and that the government only is granted certain liberties by the citizens. The current problem is that a vast majority of our politicians do see themselves in a parental role and reject the idea that liberty is the natural system, and power only granted by the citizens. Instead the believe liberties is granted by the governed. This tends to be the natural evolution of government in the western world (it seems less so in some other cultures), especially in Germanic and Celtic cultures. Chiefs and later kings were originally elected or selected by the free born males, often the warriors (although in these cultures all free males were expected to be warriors to some degree), ruling only through influence and only with the permission of society. This eventually stratified into the hierarchy of the feudal system, and then the creation of the pre modern and modern nation states dominated by a strong central government, until the age of enlightenment led back to the people reasserting to various degrees, their original positions, only to have the process start over. We're starting to see, even in Europe, a growing disconcert with the idea that liberty is granted by the state, and growing reassertion that government is not the grantor of liberty, but only rules through the consent of the governed (see the current unrest in the Netherlands, the Brexit Movement, the Tea Party movement, etc). The pace of these evolution is probably quicker today than in the past because communication is so much simpler and quicker, therefore organizing and trading of ideas is simpler than it's ever been, but the cycle remains the same.

          I should note, a similar evolutionary cycle can also be seen in Greco-Roman culture, with the caveat that they evolved towards the strong, centralized authority, marked by a distinct hierarchy, but didn't experience the full circular cycle that I refer to above because they failed before these cycles could be completed. In fact, it could be argued that their failure was the result of their resistance to these evolutionary processes, as the cultures that replaced them, were initially more decentralized than they were. This is why I think that the idea of a single, unified, strong world government, devoid of national, or tribal identity is doomed, and extremely unlikely ever to succeed (unless or until such a time that colonization of the solar system and if possible, beyond, gives an avenue of choice to those malcontents who reject hierarchal society). It may be the wish of those who are content in their positions, or value safety and security above individualism and liberty, but a significant portion (albeit possibly, likely probably, not the majority) of human culture rejects these schools of thought.

          One final thought, this evolution occurs because as cultures grow more complex, the need for dependable, stable government grows. However, as the need for more complex government grows, that same government begins to conflict with the liberties of the citizens. This eventually leads invariably to government assuming more power, and generally size, until it reaches a tipping point, where it's a self perpetuating growth. At which point it no longer governs by consent, but via fiat. At this point, the system either crashes under its own weight (Roman Empire) or the citizens take back the power (18th and 19th Century Europe, and the Americas), only to start the process over again. The beauty of the American experiment (which wasn't actually a whole new society, but a return to concepts very similar to the Germanic Thing societies, and actually bears very strong similarities to the Holy Roman Empire, which was rejected as a template by those who believed in a strong central government with weaker local governments) is that we have mechanisms in place to achieve these evolutionary changes without the need to resort to violent rebellions. The problem occurs when these processes break down. The test will be this November and the following years, to see if the process no longer allows the redress that it's supposed to. People like Nardz believes it's past the point. These next couple of years will either prove them wrong, or prophetic. Either way, even if revolt may prove necessary, the time isn't quite ripe for it to occur.

          1. Nardz   3 years ago

            "The test will be this November and the following years, to see if the process no longer allows the redress that it's supposed to. People like Nardz believes it's past the point. These next couple of years will either prove them wrong, or prophetic. Either way, even if revolt may prove necessary, the time isn't quite ripe for it to occur."

            Ok. Lay out a realistic scenario that proves us wrong.

      2. mad.casual   3 years ago

        It really needs to be reiterated that the problem isn't that we're turning into a banana republic, it's that we already are a banana republic and people are complaining about it we need more and more diverse bananas.

        FIFY

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          Is that like social justice diversity? Where bananas look different but taste exactly the same?

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            WHY DO YOU HATE PLANTAINS!?

            1. Pathogen   3 years ago

              Because of their freedoms?

    2. Claptrap   3 years ago

      It was a 9:00 raid, you clod. Totally different.

      Though for the 80-year old man at the receiving end, it might as well be the same thing.

      1. Claptrap   3 years ago

        I guess Dizzle got memory holed for calling ENB a cunt too many times. GG.

        Something, something, shrike's kiddie porn, all the spam, something something.

        1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

          I was wondering why some comments seemed to be missing.

          So not even the Reason comments are sacred anymore.

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

            Killing free speech in order to save it.

    3. damikesc   3 years ago

      "Man rapes woman, fueling worries about possible ear pain from her screams" --- ENB

    4. Anomalous   3 years ago

      Politico Playbook quotes a lawyer on this point:

      “If they raided his home just to find classified documents he took from The White House,” one legal expert noted, “he will be re-elected president in 2024, hands down. It will prove to be the greatest law enforcement mistake in history.”

      (h/t Charlie Cooke)

    5. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

      Eh, not all of us are cowards who hide behind weasel words.

      https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/covid-data-the-ira-and-political

      1. Eeyore   3 years ago

        The other possibility is that it takes a lot more IRS agents to do the same work when they all work from home and only work one hour a day each.

        Either way this adds 80k people who are contributing nothing to the economy, which will add to inflation.

  8. wreckinball   3 years ago

    God ENB are you a complete idiot

    1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

      You told her!

      And included such a thorough explanation of her idiocy.

      1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

        Some things don’t need to be explained.

      2. R Mac   3 years ago

        I did. With information that is common knowledge. But you’ll ignore that.

        1. Overt   3 years ago

          That's Mike and Chemjeff's schtick. They ignore any cogent arguments- pretending they have that person muted, or just blatantly refusing to engage. And then when someone posts a one liner like this, it's off to the races about "You guys and your baseless conspiracy theories! All stupid morons!"

          It has grown quite tiresome.

      3. damikesc   3 years ago

        Should he just link to all of her articles? You can find them easily enough and they are all fairly decent evidence of her being a giggling moron.

      4. Ted   3 years ago

        Her idiocy, and yours, have been explained explained here, at length, and repetitively. Do you require more?

      5. Roberta   3 years ago

        At this point the Sevo treatment, calling an obvious doofus an obvious doofus, is all that's needed.

        1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

          Obvious!

    2. Social Justice is neither   3 years ago

      But at least she's useful in her idiocy to the marxists pulling the DNC strings.

  9. Nardz   3 years ago

    How many lines need to be crossed before some of yall face reality?

    1. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

      Nardz, I want to see the warrant and supporting docs.

      A line has been crossed, 100% no debate. Only some time and transparency will show if THE line was crossed.

      It is not good, no matter how you look at it.

      1. Nardz   3 years ago

        Jesus fucking christ, dude

      2. damikesc   3 years ago

        The judge who approved it is already looking unbelievably suspicious.

    2. damikesc   3 years ago

      They will REALLY dislike these rules when applied to their preferred people.

      Because I want to see a President DeSantis go nuclear on his Dem opponents.

      1. Nardz   3 years ago

        I want to see stacks of corpses.

        There is no other solution. We can sit here and circle jerk all day about voting and rule of law and bullshit politics, but none of that matters anymore. I've been trying to tell you for years.
        The nazis and Soviets didn't stop because people pointed out their hypocrisy or objected to their killing tens of millions of their own citizens.
        What we face now is worse than what the Germans or Russians faced when those totalitarian regimes were in their early stages.

        1. Overt   3 years ago

          I am not saying that Nardz is an agent provocateur working for the FBI. But please read the above, and understand that if someone were such an informant, trying to get Reason commenters sent to jail, it wouldn't be much different than this.

          1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

            Nah, Nardz comment is no different than the woodchipper incident. Joe Friday is much more likely to be FBI. From the goofy law enforcement reference handle to the insufferable proggie links, outright lies about science and history, and gaslighting, Joe is far more likely to inspire murderous rage in others. I find Nardz to be cathartic.

            1. Zeb   3 years ago

              The woodchipper incident was obviously not serious. Nardz will argue with you all day and claim he is quite serious and means what he says literally. It's rather different from the woodchipper incident.
              I'm not saying he is a fed, but if he was, he'd be doing a pretty good job of it.

              1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

                What irritates me about Nardz and sometimes half make me believe he's a plant is that he almost always advocates for others to conduct the violence he calls for, well, never seeming to volunteer himself for this violence.

                1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

                  To be clear,I don't think he's actually an agent provocateur, he's just a revolutionary cosplayer.

                  1. Nardz   3 years ago

                    Name one fucking time I've asked you or anybody else to do violence.

                    And yes, I do think that vets will keep making excuses for the government they served.

                    1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

                      And yes, I do think that vets will keep making excuses for the government they served.

                      Brutality! I have to say that sm76 walked himself right into the line of fire there. Mean words are not violence.

                    2. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

                      Your second paragraph alludes to you calling others to violence. You have asked on more than one occasion why we vets are ignoring our oath and when pressed on it you quickly scamper away and state 'im not asking you to commit violence'. It's almost as disingenuous as Jeffy stating he isn't a lefty. The meaning is clear. Also, your constant refrain when people bring up changing things through elections that elections are now meaningless and that we're deficient in using the established system to achieve change. No, you've never directly told anyone to commit violence but you've clearly implied it multiple times.

                    3. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

                      And like I told you when you used almost the same line last time we got into this, about vets, that using the system set up by the constitution to achieve change is defending the constitution, that violence is the last resort. You scoffed at using the system and then inferred strongly, as you do here, that anyone using the constitutional system to defend the Constitution is ignoring their oath and might as well be enablers of the current bastardization of government powers.

                    4. Nardz   3 years ago

                      "You have asked on more than one occasion why we vets are ignoring our oath and when pressed on it you quickly scamper away and state 'im not asking you to commit violence'."

                      I'm not asking you to do anything, I'm expressing skepticism that the community will actually defend the constitution from domestic enemies.
                      Yes, I think we're past the point where action was justified and dutiful.

                    5. Nardz   3 years ago

                      "Also, your constant refrain when people bring up changing things through elections that elections are now meaningless and that we're deficient in using the established system to achieve change."
                      Yes, that is the conclusion I've come to. Please shoe me evidence that would change my mind, because I'd love to.

                      "No, you've never directly told anyone to commit violence but you've clearly implied it multiple times."
                      Ah, so thoughtcrime it is!

                    6. Nardz   3 years ago

                      "And like I told you when you used almost the same line last time we got into this, about vets, that using the system set up by the constitution to achieve change is defending the constitution, that violence is the last resort. You scoffed at using the system and then inferred strongly, as you do here, that anyone using the constitutional system to defend the Constitution is ignoring their oath and might as well be enablers of the current bastardization of government powers."

                      Again, I'd like to see some indication I'm wrong. If 2020, all of 2020, didn't change your mind I'm not sure anything will.
                      So what's the process whereby elections and use of the constitutional system (which, by the way, does include the right to revolt - but we can exclude that from this discussion) prevents globalist totalitarians from continuing to do exactly what they're doing now?

                2. Chairman of the Bored   3 years ago

                  he almost always advocates for others to conduct the violence he calls for, well, never seeming to volunteer himself for this violence

                  Maybe Nardz is Ray Epps?

                3. Nardz   3 years ago

                  I'm not asking anyone to do violence, I'm analyzing the fucking situation and coming to a conclusion.
                  That you think this is some sort of fed entrapment or illegal speech is pretty strong evidence that said analysis and conclusions are correct.

                  1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

                    No one thinks it's entrapment, really reading that difficult for you? I said half belief, which clearly indicates disbelief. And as I've explained to you before, multiple times, it's not that anyone actually believes your an agent provocateur but rather your rhetoric is similar to what an agent provocateur would utilize to entrap someone. It's telling that you think violence is necessary but you've never once offered to organize that violence, but do ridicule anyone who is reluctant to utilize violence and would rather achieve change through the system. It's telling, not that your an agent provocateur, but that your a windbag, who talks big but doesn't appear ready to back up your talk. And no, I'm not asking you to back it up, but rather pointing out your behavior is all talk. When the bullets actually start flying, I fully expect you'll be safe within your own basement posting screeds rather than on the front lines. And I can see your posts now 'why did those vets wait so long before acting, while we're most likely be the ones doing most of the actual fighting, if it comes to that. Because your like that dude who has to tell everyone how tough he is, but as soon as he meets someone who doesn't back down and is willing to fight, makes excuses why he can't fight.

                    1. Nardz   3 years ago

                      You're mighty determined to miss the point.

          2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

            I don't necessarily disagree with Nardz' passion, but I wish he'd be more judicious and not give the chemleft continuum rhetorical ammunition.

            There's a lot of other avenues to explore before a stack of corpses ever becomes justified.

            1. Nardz   3 years ago

              What avenues?

              There are no rules anymore, only weapons.
              (The supposed rules are a weapon)

          3. Nardz   3 years ago

            So, overt, you think chilling speech is a good thing?
            That what you're saying here doesn't 100% fucking support the exact point I'm making?

            1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

              That isn't what he said or implied at all. Just because people aren't going out and raising rebellion at your beck and call (and I'll note you aren't either) doesn't mean they support these actions. Pushback and reaction isn't limited to violence. He is pointing out that the FBI and DoJ has a long history of planting agents inside movements to influence those movements to prosecutable actions, generally violence, to achieve their desired goals, and that those agent provocateur use rhetoric surprisingly similar to your calls for others to commit the violence you believe is necessary. The problem isn't that you're one of these agent provocateur, but that your rhetoric is very parallel, and your obvious reluctance to start the ball rolling yourself, to the rhetoric they use in previous situations.

              1. Nardz   3 years ago

                You completely missed the point.

                1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

                  If that wasn't your point, which I don't see how any other reading of what you posted could mean, GG made the point much better. Because he clearly articulated that the fact that Overt considers this a distinct possibility shows that it's crossed a certain threshold that it's never should have crossed.

        2. The Encogitationer   3 years ago

          *In Casey Kasem voice*

          "And now today's Long Distance Dedication goes out to Nardz. "Goldie" Geiger Goldstaedt, and all the Neoreactionary Putineers out there!"

          "It's a heartfelt song from a hard-rockin' British band from the Seventies, so you know it's not some Goddamn Dead Dog Dedication! "

          "Without further ado, here, to Nardz. Goldie, and fellow Henchmen, is your Long Distance Dedication from the Ponderously Fucking Ponderously great band, Bad Company, right here on American Top Fourty!"

          Silver, Blue, and Gold--Bad Company
          https://youtu.be/HJV9UauZb5Y

          "Give me Silver, Blue, and Gold!
          The color of the sky I'm told!
          My Ra-a-a-ainbow is overdue!...". 🙂

          Backstory for the Radio-Naive
          https://youtu.be/C7lHTMuix3o

        3. con_fuse9   3 years ago

          You can be the first corpse.

          1. The Encogitationer   3 years ago

            Life's about showing up and staying that way and I mean to do both whether you can or not.

            1. The Encogitationer   3 years ago

              Or anyone. (I didn't see which way the conversation was flowing.)

      2. Ben of Houston   3 years ago

        Be careful what you wish for.
        Do you recall why Caesar crossed the Rubicon and invaded Rome?
        Because he knew that once his governorship ended, along with his sovereign immunity, he was going to be immediately arrested and prosecuted with a litany of crimes, many of them true.

        Thus, Caesar was put into a position where he could either go quietly to his definite impoverishment and likely execution or fight. He chose to rip the country apart and become dictator for life.

        1. Nardz   3 years ago

          Caesar was correct.
          The popular, Shakespearean portrayal of the fall of the late republic is pure propaganda.
          The senate was in the wrong vs Caesar, seeking to crush the people and maintain a fatally corrupted government structure.

          Livy's history is really, really important reading. What you see in it, time and time again, is the senatorial class constantly expanding their powers and privileges at the people's expense. For centuries the senate would push, push, push until the people had enough and revolted. It was cyclical. But only possible when the senators had to live within reach of the people. This dynamic started breaking down with Rome's expansion. Far off lands gave senators a place to flee to. Accumulating wealth gave them means to fund private gangs of bodyguards like little warlords. Thus the Gracchi were murdered, Marius eventually defeated, and Sulla's pogroms undertaken.
          The republic was broken. Caesar just recognized it (and may have lived longer had he been less merciful, and more like Sulla before him).

  10. R Mac   3 years ago

    “Republicans have rediscovered skepticism of FBI power following a Monday raid of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida.”

    Rediscovered? Can we please get through the first fucking sentence before the lying starts?

    1. R Mac   3 years ago

      “It's no secret that we have little love for the FBI here at Reason, and the raid could well turn out to be conducted under a politicized pretense, but for now we don't really know what's going on.”

      You’ve been ignoring enough of it the last six years that you could forgive someone for not realizing this.

    2. R Mac   3 years ago

      “In order for the raid to be ordered, the FBI would have had to have gotten a federal search warrant, and convincing a judge to issue one requires particular evidence and parameters. "Federal magistrate judges tend to require relatively thorough, specific, and well-documented applications, as opposed to state judges, who will generally sign a warrant that looks like something Gary Busey blew out of his nose after Fourth of July weekend," tweeted White.”

      Well sure, if you ignore the FISA warrents. Which you have.

      1. Sometimes a Great Notion   3 years ago

        Must admit, I'd have a case of schadenfreude if it came back that the intelligence used to secure the warrant fell under sect 702 of the FISA court.

        Hopefully when the Republicans gain power again, they remember to repeal all that 2000s legislation that they assured us was nothing to worry about if you hadn't done anything wrong.

        1. Nardz   3 years ago

          You don't seem to understand the world you live in.

    3. R Mac   3 years ago

      “Conversely, the fact that a former president isn't above the law if he did do something wrong should not be upsetting to anyone.”

      Except it’s only THIS former president that’s not above the law. Former secretaries of state? Former vice-presidents and their family members? Still well above the law. But 100 ex-intelligence officials told you to ignore that, and you obeyed.

      1. Fat Mike's Drug Habit   3 years ago

        Literally the same FBI that treats the sitting President's son as above the law, but that's not worth worrying about because he's only raping children and not Tweeting mean stuff.

        1. R Mac   3 years ago

          I’m sure ENB has convinced herself that the only things Hunter’s done is drugs and hookers, which should be legal, so it’s fine he’s above the law.

          1. Fat Mike's Drug Habit   3 years ago

            I'm not even going to be that charitable, they think his escapades with minors should be legal too.

          2. Ben of Houston   3 years ago

            Let's not forget that the man is somehow a notorious cocaine addict despite having 24/7 security guards who are sworn police officers for the past 20 years. Since he shares bank accounts with his father, Joe Biden is also effectively paying for the drugs.

            Either the Secret Service is watching the Bidens commit felonies to purchase these drugs or they are committing felonies for them. There is no third option. We need to include the secret service in the list of politically-compromised agencies.

            And the cocaine is the least objectionable thing in this discussion. It's just the most indisputable, like Capone's tax evasion.

    4. R Mac   3 years ago

      CJ Ciaramella
      @cjciaramella
      ·
      Follow
      a based republic is when I punish my political enemies. A banana republic is when my political enemies punish me

      Such as?

      1. damikesc   3 years ago

        The Mises Caucus could not have come at a better time to clean up the mess that is the LP and, hopefully, libertarianism. Reason is not libertarian. Just pro-drugs and hookers.

  11. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

    Republicans have rediscovered skepticism of FBI power

    Umm...have you ignored the past six years, during which the Left (including most of the writers here) cheered the FBI's every action uncritically, while the Right has been calling for its abolition?

    1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      Yes, but her narrative.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Perhaps if the FBI had been hassling sex workers.

        1. Jonny Quest   3 years ago

          ENB would be all over that. Can't have whores getting hassled.....wait. So THAT'S why they're hiring 87,000 IRS enforcement agents! Can't have prostitutes out there with unreported income.

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            Instagram hoes will definitely be on their list.

  12. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Random thoughts on the raid.

    1. The FBI didn't feel the need to:
    Investigate the powerful pedophiles in Epstein's records.
    Raid Hillary after she destroyed 33,000 subpoenaed emails, smashing phones, hard drives and even SIM cards.
    Raid or even investigate Hunter after the contents of his laptop became known.

    The FBI did feel the need to:
    Raid a president's home to get requested documents that he had agreed already to provide. Even though Obama, the Bushes, Clinton, Reagan and Carter received similar requests from the National Archive.

    2. The fix must be truly in for November if Garland et. al feel secure enough to pull this.

    3. They're trying to bait a reaction from the plebs.

    4. The FBI is beyond institutionally corrupt and needs to be ended. Everyone needs to be fired. The federal government doesn't need a lot police force.

    1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

    2. sarcasmic   3 years ago

      Whatabout?

      Whataboutwhataboutwhatabout?

      Whatabout?

      1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

        Poor sarc.

        1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

          Screaming whataboutism at honest comparisons is all he's got.

          And remember, he's totally not a Democrat, something, something.

          1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

            Your comparison is the definition of whataboutism. Hey! Let's talk this instead! Look! Squirrel!

            1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

              No sarcasmic. The comparisons are relevant and critically important to establishing motive. That's not how "whataboutism" works.

              1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                It's totally irrelevant, which makes it whataboutism. Someone you didn't like was treated in a way that made you mad, and that absolves the person you like from fault. Whatabout Johnny? He got away with it! Not fair! That's playground logic.

                1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                  That's not what's happening here.
                  The teacher here sat happily sat and watched every other boy systematically rape and kill a younger child, and then she beat the living shit out of Johnny for picking his nose.
                  It's not whataboutism for Johnny to ask "what about".

                2. VULGAR MADMAN   3 years ago

                  Remember that sarcasmic isn’t on the left.
                  He only spends all his time defending the left.

                  That and whining like a bitch.

                3. Ted   3 years ago

                  Sarc, it’s clear to everyone here that your hatred of our former president ‘Trumps’ all other considerations.

      2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        Here sarc. I understand that this is all hard for you:

        Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation. (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

        1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

          Yes. A great example of this is your starting point being Epstein. Thank you.

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            And if this is accurate?

            https://mobile.twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1556989930416484352?t=-ashJFs4LkcUjccANvgDyg&s=19

            1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

              More evidence that they are not bothering to hide anymore.

          2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

            You didn't read it did you? Sorry, the Simple English version didn't have a page.

            1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

              Your defense of Trump is "Whatabout.....? Let's talk about this instead!"

              Then you accuse me of whataboutism. That make sense. Part of your shtick is to accuse others of what you are doing, like when you create a strawman and then accuse the person who points it out of strawmanning. So you're staying true to form. Good job.

              1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                "What about" is an attack on the FBI'S actions, not a statement of Trump's innocence or guilt. If the question wasn't relevant then it would be whataboutism, but it is.

                This isn't hard, but you're really not very smart, want to troll and are itching for revenge so I don't imagine that this is going to the get through.

                1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

                  None if it will ever get through. Sarc and jeffy refuse to acknowledge the actual history of socialism/Marxism and its insinuation into Western society. There is no reason to believe they will ever acknowledge current events or what are clearly the machinations of the Democrats at the highest levels to reserve all power to their party alone.

                  You have to stop responding to them. Their greatest fear is being ignored. They come back to Reason specifically because they get a response here. Anywhere else their solipsism is undifferentiable from the background noise.

                  1. R Mac   3 years ago

                    Best to call Lying Jeffy the liar he is and move on. Sarc’s broken and should either quit drinking for good or just go Nick Cage in Leaving Las Vegas and finish the job.

          3. Cyto   3 years ago

            You did catch that these are the same people involved in the Epstein coverup, right?

            1. R Mac   3 years ago

              Nope. They’re going to ignore that.

      3. damikesc   3 years ago

        Fuck you and your bullshit.

      4. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

        Pointing out that these actions were not taken against previous presidents, despite very similar accusations, is not whataboutism, it's establishing that these actions go far beyond the norm, and therefore there is grounds to be questioning why they took these unprecedented steps. And why now? Your trying to call it whataboutism, though, is pure deflections. And it's fairly obvious that you're not criticizing behavior you would condemn in other circumstances, ergo, your deflections is a complete betrayal of the principles you pretend to defend. Therefore, the only conclusion one can draw is that you are selective in your principles and willing to betray them if you don't like someone. Which is fairly antithetical to purported libertarian principles.

      5. chem-jongjeff radical communist   3 years ago

        sarcasmic always playing the idiot leftist sheep to perfection. Bravo sir.

    3. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

      3. They're trying to bait a reaction from the plebs.

      This is the most likely. This is an FBI that considers that nation's first national flag to be a symbol of domestic terrorism.

      1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

        I think it's all four. They believe that the Republicans will do nothing if they gain power, maybe some hearings with no actions taken, and based on precedence they're probably justified in these presumptions, any reaction this sparks the FBI will use as an excuse to target conservatives even more, they're locked in the DC bubble and actually think Biden's 'wins' the last two weeks will help the Democrats in November (not sure the fix is in, rather more that they don't perceive the anger in the country largely because the media is ignoring it or downplaying it) and we know the FBI is beyond corrupt.

        1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

          The inability of the Republicans, tea party or otherwise, to inhibit the bureaucracy make them irrelevant. The Legislature has ceded authority to agencies to the extent that they now have little, if any, influence over how the laws they pass are implemented.

          Trump proved that the President is unable to influence the FBI despite having complete control of its director. I don't think the system is fixable without a revolution. If they didn't fix it after all the excesses of J. Edgar Hoover were exposed, they never will.

      2. Nardz   3 years ago

        Depending on the reaction. A few isolated incidents are useful. A conflagration that grows to millions is their greatest fear.

        You realize that if there is no reaction, they win, right?

        1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

          There will be reaction but it may be far more subtle than you or others will notice or even desire. We trace the start of the Revolution to the aftermath of the French-Indian/7 years war, but you can see the roots of the movement, starting in King William's War if you look at it, quite possibly to the founding of Jamestown and Plymouth colonies, which were privately funded colonial actions, thus setting the foundations for the Revolution into place. The point being is that those who believe violence is the only answer, tend to be myopic to other, more subtle reactions. Most people will instead rely on the system until it's basically forced on them to reject the system. Even after the first shots on Lexington Green, the Continental Congress sought a way to work things out through engagement with Parliament and the King. It was only when both refused to even read the Olive Branch Petition, that they seriously began to debate Independence, and nearly a year later before they took definitive actions.

          In other words, most people will vote, even though they suspect something was off in the last elections, and pray that their fears aren't realized before they'll side with the Sam Adamses of today. And also, realize it wasn't Sam Adams that became a leader in the movement he agitated for so long, it was his cousin who tried to work with the system that eventually achieved leadership in the movement he helped create. Benjamin Franklin tried to work the system, despite being critical of it, he even worked to place his son and himself in a positions within the system, only finally accepting that the system couldn't function after his trial at parliament, and subsequent ejection from his posts.

          If you believe that lack of violence shows a lack of reaction you're likely to be disappointed, however, there is going to be reaction even if it's far more subtle than you're willing to accept. Because, that's how people, society and western culture works.

          1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

            Why I say the fact that Jamestown and Plymouth being privately funded is important is that, unlike Canada (founded by the French Cown) and Australia (founded by the English Government), they weren't directed by the government to found this colonies (they did seek permission but the organization and funding was almost entirely private). They created their own governing bodies, that the Crown only later worked with for their own goals (often because it was to difficult to ignore them). Canada however, governing bodies were formed and controlled from the start by the French Crown, and after the French defeat in the 7 years war, the British Government stepped in and placed their own government in place. The same with Australia. And that likely explains why their independence was much later than ours, and much less complete than ours.

          2. Nardz   3 years ago

            "It was only when both refused to even read the Olive Branch Petition, that they seriously began to debate Independence"

            And you presumably don't think such a moment has happened yet?

  13. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    ...the fact that a former president isn't above the law if he did do something wrong should not be upsetting to anyone.

    Au contraire, I get a hardon thinking of these people going after each other. I assume the media class will only find this acceptable going one way, but the idea that each administration sends its alphabet agencies after the previous one makes me warm.

    Unfortunately, it will turn out that Trump is uniquely a threat and we'll return to protecting each other after this.

    1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

      If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

    2. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

      I'm pretty sure that the media was giving a different spin in 2017, saying that prosecuting former Obama administration officials would be a giant breach of protocol, and create an unacceptable precedence. To be fair, Reason dismissed this narrative back then, and did state no one should be shielded from the actions, especially previous administration officials.

      1. Nardz   3 years ago

        Except Biden, since they fully supported impeaching Trump for it...

        1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

          That isn't really doubted, either.

          1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

            Actually, now that I reread your statement I don't actually remember them calling for his impeachment for voicing support for prosecuting former Obama officials, which he never actually did, BTW. I remember them condemning those actions for several paragraphs and then starting a new paragraph with a statement similar to 'leaving Trump's authoritarian rhetoric aside, no one should be above the law, especially politicians'. I do remember them supporting the first impeachment, which was weak and a much different situation, and never voicing full support, nor condemnation, for his second impeachment. It did seem they were more supportive of it, but less so than for his first impeachment.

            1. Nardz   3 years ago

              They just made the case justifying both impeachments, then added a weak little "but" to cover their asses.
              When you've fully accepted and pushed the rationale the impeachers used, you've endorsed their actions even if you say at the end you disagree with how far they took it.
              Chemjeff and sarcasmic do the exact same thing all the damn time.

      2. NOYB2   3 years ago

        To be fair, that was before TDS rotted their brains.

        1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

          No, the rot was evident even then, because they always prefaced it with a condemnation of Trump but then followed by a statement that leaving that aside, no one should be above the law.

      3. Cyto   3 years ago

        I recall reason telling me that Trump was clearly crazy for claiming his phones were tapped.

        Several times I posted the NYT article featuring Obama administration officials bragging that they had leaked classified information in order to get Trump removed from office here in the comments. Reason didn't see a problem with that.

        We have Sally Yates notes. Obama ordered the FBI to frame the incoming National Security Adviser for a crime he did not commit. The FBI agents in the room were so comfortable with this they asked him to clarify, were they to get him fired, or arrested?.

        Not a peep from the voice of liberty.

        Robby is the only one who has dared tiptoe up to the topic of FBI provocateurs.

        1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

          Like I said above, the articles I refer to almost always followed a formula of bashing trump and then a statement along the lines of 'leaving that aside, no one should be above the law'.

    3. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

      the idea that each administration sends its alphabet agencies after the previous one makes me warm.

      It would be nice to see Hunter go down in a hail of gunfire.

      1. richard KARn aka home improvement’s al borland   3 years ago

        You think alleged corruption warrants a summary execution? Or is it because he did drugs?

        Either way it’s ridiculous.

        1. CLM1227   3 years ago

          Treason if his positions in businesses with fascist ties to government was used to have access to favors in the Obama and Biden administrations.

        2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

          You would cheer if they executed Putin tomorrow. If corruption in government is punishable by death then it should not be arbitrary. They should all die.

          I am not the one being ridiculous.

          1. richard KARn aka home improvement’s al borland   3 years ago

            When did Hunter Biden assassinate critics of his or his dad?

            When did Hunter Biden invade a sovereign nation?

            1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

              No. I will not engage in your goalpost shifting. Corruption is corruption. Punishing it differently is arbitrary. Argue against that or fuck right off.

          2. richard KARn aka home improvement’s al borland   3 years ago

            You really think we should treat domestic corruption the same as war?

            1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

              Until the punishment for crimes under the color of authority exceeds the benefits of abusing the public trust, punishment will never be a deterrent. They execute soldiers for disloyalty in war. It is arbitrary for leaders (or their families) to be treated differently.

  14. Kungpowderfinger   3 years ago

    Those of you that have Republican congressmen, please inform them that Wray either resigns or they don’t get your vote for the midterms.

    1. Nardz   3 years ago

      LOL

      You're kidding, right?

      How the fuck are you still in this much denial???

      1. Kungpowderfinger   3 years ago

        I have to believe the ballot box can still fix the open corruption in our country.

        1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

          Too late.

        2. R Mac   3 years ago

          You don’t have to, you just choose to.

          1. Kungpowderfinger   3 years ago

            Perhaps we’re beyond punishing the corrupt with elections (I don’t believe we are), but Trump’s election certainly exposed them with a 100,000 lum bulb.

            1. R Mac   3 years ago

              And they all got away with it, and are now even more clearly, openly corrupt.

              The guy that got caught lying on a FISA warrant application to spy on POTUS got PROBATION.

              1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

                Again, not hiding it anymore.

        3. Nardz   3 years ago

          Why?

          1. Kungpowderfinger   3 years ago

            Blind faith at this point, most likely.

        4. Spiritus Mundi   3 years ago

          How did that "vote for us and we will repeal Obama care" thing work out for you?

    2. But SkyNet is a Private Company   3 years ago

      Let me get this straight….
      The minority party is responsible for the guy Trump appointed resigning voluntarily, or, the Democrats will win a wave election? This is just brilliance

      1. Kungpowderfinger   3 years ago

        The GOP congress was instrumental in putting Comey’s ass on the street, they can do it again with the proper motivation.

        https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/12/02/james-comey-drops-legal-challenge-will-testify-to-congress.html

        1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   3 years ago

          There is no GOP Congress, moron

          1. Kungpowderfinger   3 years ago

            Settle down with the name calling.

            Are you suggesting the GOP are powerless without a majority?

            No wonder they’re so comfortable as minority incumbents.

  15. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Taking classified documents is indeed a crime, but it's a crime that's rarely prosecuted...

    Just ask Sandy Berger's pants.

    1. R Mac   3 years ago

      He was a SERIOUS ADULT so it’s different.

    2. R Mac   3 years ago

      Or maybe that was taking classified documents within normal parameters? I have a hard time keeping track.

    3. DeAnnP   3 years ago

      Are you suggesting Sandy Berger was not charged for those actions?

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        Probation.

        1. DeAnnP   3 years ago

          So then he was one of the rarely prosecuted.

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            Yeah, he shoved documents down his pants, blatantly stealing documents, and still only got probation.

    4. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

      Hillary Clinton.

  16. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

    It is a grave step to serve a warrant on an ex-POTUS. Let's see the warrant, and the supporting evidence. It will be immediately clear if this is political persecution or not.

    America is now in a very bad spot. The country is being torn asunder, and we're about to go to war with another superpower over Taiwan.

    Does anyone really think it will stop with POTUS Trump?

    1. Nardz   3 years ago

      "Let's see the warrant, and the supporting evidence. It will be immediately clear if this is political persecution or not."

      Wow.

      1. JimboJr   3 years ago

        this is after a raid conducted after the season finale one finale of "January 6: A show trial".

        They arent even hiding the blatant corruption

        1. damikesc   3 years ago

          That Cheney is promising "more" damning evidence (more? I'd like to see any) in hearings a little before the midterms speaks volumes.

          Might be time to declassify all of Bush's documents and allow her dad to suffer consequences.

          1. NOYB2   3 years ago

            Frankly, she is making her dad look good by comparison, and that is a very, very low standard.

      2. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

        Nardz...considering the potential stakes here, it pays to be cautious and prudent. Waiting for release of the warrant and supporting evidence strikes me as the right thing to do....we are only talking a week or so.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Remember the good old days when the president, wishing to distract Americans from domestic issues, would just blow something up on the other side of the globe?

      1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

        They tried that and it didn't work.

    3. Cyto   3 years ago

      There is no deep state.

      The Obama administration bragged that they had leaked classified information to set up Trump for impeachment immediately after the inauguration.

      Still up at the NYT.

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

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        But Michael Savage said Obama should be impeached so that’s the same thing!

        — Lefty Jeffy

        1. R Mac   3 years ago

          Seriously, not exaggerating:

          https://reason.com/2022/08/08/fda-cant-stop-harassing-distillers-who-made-hand-sanitizer-during-the-pandemic/?comments=true#comment-9638580

    4. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

      and we're about to go to war with another superpower over Taiwan.

      Based on the top Ds investments in China, this shenanigan may be a way to distract from potential war instead of the other way around. Other than the contingent from Hawaii, what do the D politicians have to fear from Chinese supremacy in the Pacific?

  17. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

    In order for the raid to be ordered, the FBI would have had to have gotten a federal search warrant, and convincing a judge to issue one requires particular evidence and parameters. "Federal magistrate judges tend to require relatively thorough, specific, and well-documented applications, as opposed to state judges, who will generally sign a warrant that looks like something Gary Busey blew out of his nose after Fourth of July weekend," tweeted White.

    Yeah, that process has never, ever been abused, especially not for political purposes.

    1. R Mac   3 years ago

      And never against Trump.

    2. damikesc   3 years ago

      And when you do lie to courts in affidavits, if you're in the Deep State, I bet the penalties are harsher than most.

      1. NOYB2   3 years ago

        Wet noodles!

  18. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    The Democrats just handed the IRS 6X their annual budget to more than double their workforce...

    Enough to perhaps audit the entirety of their fellow bureaucrats in DC and maybe even our elected leaders and their staff?

    1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      Every congressman in congress for over six years gets audited first.

      1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

        And all of their immediate family

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          Especially their family.

    2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

      Where are they going to find 87,000 people who are qualified for the job? It’s not like all those TSA employees are going to take up accounting.

      1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

        Who says you have to be qualified?

        1. HorseConch   3 years ago

          It doesn't seem to matter in any other agency, so no reason to be for the IRS.

        2. R Mac   3 years ago

          Considering they’re stocking up on ammo, definitely don’t need to be an accountant.

        3. Ska   3 years ago

          Based on my experiences with anyone below manager level at the IRS, they have always been hiring with that philosophical question in mind.

        4. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          Qualifications are not a problem, given that federal agencies hire primarily based on DEI. Thousands of un/under-employed ethnic and gender specialists are standing by.

          ps. Accounting, like all math-based disciplines, is sexist and racist.

      2. Sometimes a Great Notion   3 years ago

        They will if they get to keep their molestation privileges, plus all the new power granted by being an IRS agent.

        Also, what they accomplish doesn't matter; what matters is that union rolls/dues increase. They'll hire anyone and stick them in a rubber room all day.

        1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

          I predict this is going to play out with the IRS hiring, oh way, 20,000 new employees. And a lot of incompetent audits that waste a whole lot of otherwise productive people’s time.

          1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

            Don’t forget the possibility of jail time.

          2. R Mac   3 years ago

            I’m sure you also predict it won’t be political in nature who gets audited.

          3. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

            Curious how that would play out on the balance sheet budget wise.

    3. JohannesDinkle   3 years ago

      I was audited by the IRS in San Diego in 1974. One employer, standard deduction, short form. Waiting in the office I was in company with other Libertarians I knew. We waited all day while people walked in off the street and were seen - no pay for us while missing work - and were told to come back the next day, when I was seen by an auditor.
      He told me that Libertarians are against taxation and for smaller government and that I should think hard about consequences of those beliefs. He glanced at the form, signed off on the audit and let me go, missing two days work.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Two words: body cam

        1. The Encogitationer   3 years ago

          In 1974, it would have been a very conspicuous body cam, taking up the whole body.

      2. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

        "No shit we are, and this is exactly why."

    4. damikesc   3 years ago

      And also a promise to NOT target rich people.

      If you needed evidence that the rich are their base, this is it.

      EVERY Democrat voted against requiring the new agents to focus on people making above $400K a year.

  19. TJJ2000   3 years ago

    Remember that day 12-Democratic Congressmen silenced the sitting U.S. President by phoning in demands to media outlets??

    Yeah; Me too... Its almost like the Nazi's(National Socialists) are already in control behind the curtains. If they can call-in censorship on the sitting president, run 4-years of a Russian hoax investigation and send in the FBI to raid the place. Why in the world would anyone thing they couldn't rig an election.

    1. R Mac   3 years ago

      “Nazi's(National Socialists)”

      I appreciate you clarify this in every post so no one gets confused.

      1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   3 years ago

        Cut him some slack, Mac. Not a single ‘Gov-guns’ or ‘(WE) mob’ in that post. Almost readable.

  20. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    I'd love to ask some of these people saying 'unless you're a criminal, you have no reason to worry' what they think of stop-and-frisk laws or no-knock warrants.

    A lot of those people secretly don't have a problem with those, either.

  21. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

    Remember when the FBI orchestrated and entrapped people in a plot to kidnap governor Whitmer, and Republicans completely bought it and didn't question it slightly? Remember how Republicans heard Ray Epps talk about penetrating the Capitol, and one guy started chanting "Fed! Fed! Fed!" and the other Republican supporters there said, "No, the FBI doesn't instigate shit like this."

    Because Republicans have not been skeptical at all of the FBI over the past decade. I remember when the Republicans were apologizing for the IRS, too, when the IRS was targeting political groups in 2013. Republicans said, "If it's Federal law enforcement, we have absolute trust in them!" Because that's what Republicans are like. Universally. No exceptions.

    1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      I remember that time the FBI began investigating parents for speaking out at schoolboard meetings and the Republicans collectively said, without a single dissenting voice, that "Well, if the FBI is looking into this, there must be strong evidence of domestic terrorism that needs to be eradicated swiftly."

    2. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

      I remember when Team Red puts on their paranoia tinfoil hats whenever the FBI goes after someone in their tribe, but Team Red becomes back-the-blue zealots whenever the FBI goes after someone not in their tribe.

      It is the same with Team Blue. When the eeevil George Bush was in charge, they said we had to be worried that the police were going to confiscate library records. When the Dobbs decision was announced, they think police are going to monitor period apps to try to ensnare women getting abortions. But when the FBI was investigating Trump, they put their full faith in that.

      1. damikesc   3 years ago

        "I remember when Team Red puts on their paranoia tinfoil hats whenever the FBI goes after someone in their tribe, but Team Red becomes back-the-blue zealots whenever the FBI goes after someone not in their tribe."

        Can you cite the support of the FBI in the last, say, 10 years?

        The GOP also knew that they would protect Hillary, as they did.

        We do not trust them. Their budget needs to be zeroed out.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

          Here you go.

          https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2021/09/12/after-20-years-families-finally-force-release-of-first-doc-on-secret-fbi-investigation-into-saudi-9-11-connection-n441861

          Nothing here about dirty corrupt FBI doing corrupt things. Their actions and statements are accepted and taken at face value.

          Here's another one:

          https://redstate.com/streiff/2021/03/06/fbi-investigation-finds-no-evidence-any-republican-member-of-congress-and-capitol-rioters-but-the-damage-is-done-n338675

          They're criticizing the FBI for their tactics but in the end they support the FBI's conclusions because it helps their team.

          1. damikesc   3 years ago

            No, they cite them because the FBI loathes them and STILL could not find anything on them.

            The first link...no clue what the hell you're attempting to prove.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

              Nothing here about dirty corrupt FBI doing corrupt things. Their actions and statements are accepted and taken at face value.

              1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   3 years ago

                You are really truly stupid

                1. Ted   3 years ago

                  And willfully so.

              2. damikesc   3 years ago

                No. Just "Hey, these people who lie about us consistently --- even THEY said it did not happen".

                Just like how lefties cite FNC the moment they agree with them.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                  I am referring to the first link I posted.

                  It was an FBI investigation related to radical Muslim terrorism.

                  Again the right-wing news source that I quoted did not get the vapors over the 'corrupt FBI'. No skepticism at all of their conduct in THIS case.

        2. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

          Here's some more.

          https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2021/02/18/the-fbis-entrance-into-the-investigation-of-the-cuomo-administration-signals-a-serious-turn-in-the-matter-n328817

          The author here is almost breathlessly giddy that the FBI is going to be investigating Andrew Cuomo. None of the "defund the FBI" stuff here.

          Here's another one.

          https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2021/02/12/325853-n325853

          The FBI investigates this Lincoln Project guy. Taken seriously and at face value. No concerns about "corrupt FBI" here.

          When the FBI does something that the Trumpists like, then the FBI is treated as a legit police organization.

          When the FBI does something that makes the Trumpists mad, then it's paranoia "defund the FBI" time.

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            So any story that includes the FBI needs to point out they’re corrupt? That’s quite a high standard, Lefty Jeffy.

            1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

              If it weren't for double standards Jeff wouldn't have any standards at all.

      2. Fat Mike's Drug Habit   3 years ago

        Can you provide any cites for "Back the Blue" being about supporting the FBI?

        Everything I've seen indicates it's about backing local law enforcement, particularly as it relates to use of force. Not all law enforcement is created equal, the FBI is making all of us painfully aware of that.

        1. Claptrap   3 years ago

          That introduction was just horrific all around. Rightists have been bitching about the FBI more or less non-stop for a decade, despite their natural affinity for LEOs. Even decidedly mainstream pundits and establishment organs are open to the idea of abolishing or otherwise significantly reforming the organization. Come on, man.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

            Sure the FBI needs to be reformed. But not "defunded". That is the same lunacy as the "defund the police" crap from Team Blue.

            1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

              I'll bite.
              How is eliminating the Federal Bureau of Investigation like defunding local police forces?

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                Why are you interested in the opinion of a supposed racist Nazi pedophile that you think I am?

                1. R Mac   3 years ago

                  Look at that dodge.

                2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                  Because I knew you were shit-talking, and I was curious to see how you'd handle getting called on it.

                  You performed as expected.

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                    Right, so you wanted to try to generate a gotcha.

                    Why again would I be motivated to seriously have a conversation with you?

                    1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                      You don't get it. I don't want to have a conversation with you. You're paid to lie here, what a waste of time trying to convince you of anything would be. Plus I loathe you and find you repellent.

                      No, I post to refute you. Just in case a gullible sarcasmic-like intellect wanders by and thinks your Media Matters demagoguery might have a basis in reality.

            2. damikesc   3 years ago

              It is unreformable. Zero it out. Start from scratch.

              1. R Mac   3 years ago

                Or just get rid of it altogether. Any federal agency that needs enforcement can call the Marshals.

            3. VULGAR MADMAN   3 years ago

              It would be a shame if the dems lost their secret police force.

              1. Fats of Fury   3 years ago

                They'll still have Antifa.

      3. But SkyNet is a Private Company   3 years ago

        You would be wise (you aren’t) to sit some of these out

    3. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

      Speaking of remember when.

      The FBI are the kind of people who would shoot a mother while holding her child.

      1. damikesc   3 years ago

        And promote the shooter who did so.

  22. Nardz   3 years ago

    https://twitter.com/newsmax/status/1556984896702230534?t=meWm0axMguro1KgeyssgEA&s=19

    The FBI raid on former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate could prevent the former chief executive from holding any political office in the U.S., two prominent Democrat lawyers suggested.

    [Link]

    1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

      The real hope is revealed.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

        They know that the Jan 6 Commission doesn't have any real authority to prosecute him, and another impeachment isn't going to go anywhere, so this is probably their Hail Mary. If they can't make this stick, things are going to get really ugly.

        1. Nardz   3 years ago

          I'd say we're already in "really ugly" territory.
          But it can get worse.

      2. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

        It was always transparent. They're trying to find some sort of technicality to stop him from running in 2024 -- and if they do, they'll get steamrolled by DeSantis instead.

        1. Nardz   3 years ago

          If there's no "fortification".

          Hell, IF there's a 2024 election...

  23. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Yes, the IRS needs to be able to audit people...

    You had me then you lost me.

    1. Jonny Quest   3 years ago

      Yes, the IRS needs to be [strike] able to audit people...able to audit people... [/strike] abolished.

      Is that what you were thinking when he had you?

      1. Jonny Quest   3 years ago

        Well shit...guess that doesn't work here. Oh well.

  24. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

    "If you think God doesn't like it when people look at porn, just say that. Don't lie about it being a 'public health emergency,'" writes Cathy Reisenwitz.

    Cathy Reisenwitz is obviously an ignorant twat who does not understand concepts like addiction or the warped views on sex that the younger generation is developing. Or she's a liar. Probably both.

    1. Sometimes a Great Notion   3 years ago

      And those constitute a "Public Health Emergency"? No thanks, I've had enough public health emergency now for 1 lifetime. Call me, though, when/if Ebola makes it to our shores.

      I agree Cathy is reducing the argument down in bad faith but fuck anyone who claims "public health emergency".

      1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

        Yeah, I'll agree with that. It's not a public health emergency. It is a problem for young men, though, and pretending that any concern over that is just religious zealotry is obtuse or disingenuous.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          Young men have bigger problems. Like being told that everything young men naturally think and do is wrong.

          1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

            I think this is the bigger problem. Based on cave paintings and other archeological evidence, porn has been with us since the primordial formation of cultures. Additionally, as the creation of multi room living quarters for the average person, and until the 1940s, most people grew up on farms, sex was not exactly hidden from most adolescence. So, the concern trolling about porns twisting of adolescent and young adult males is highly dubious. The larger problem has been the defining of traditional male characteristics as undesirable or taboo. These have led far more in my opinion to the relationship and societal problems of young males that the concern trolls are blaming on porn and other media.

            The female and male mind do function differently enough that many characteristics that are defined as male and female really are innate, and while, as with everything biological, it's a spectrum, to pretend these are solely the result of societal influence is highly dubious to say the least. As with several subjects, the debate isn't about nature vs nurture, but rather about how much influence the two have on the expresses phenotype. It's like my daughter crying because our cat caught and ate a baby bird last week, stating, I didn't think Boots would do that because we feed her all the time. I told her it's her nature, and well, she doesn't hunt much, because she is fed, she does still have that instinct to hunt.

            1. NOYB2   3 years ago

              Porn is to regular sex as fentanyl is to aspirin.

              1. The Encogitationer   3 years ago

                Unfortunately, it would have been a very conspicuous "body cam" in 1974. And you know any of this how?

                1. The Encogitationer   3 years ago

                  Sorry, the last sentence was meant to go elsewhere.

              2. The Encogitationer   3 years ago

                And you know any of this how?

                1. NOYB2   3 years ago

                  From observing the sufferers of both afflictions.

    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

      When even a turbolib like Billie Eilish can even admit that looking at porn as a teenager completely fucked up her perceptions of sexuality, the idea that something like porn can be as addictive and warping as crack really shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

      This isn't a Moral Majority caricature from the 80s or radfem mental case like Andrea Dworkin making these points. Plenty of normies are of the opinion that porn is not the keystone of a healthy community.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Neither is communism, Neo-luddite green climate catastrophism, or religious fanaticism, or any other fantasy-based view of reality. But trying to ban or officially constrain any of these is probably not going to turn out well.

    3. The Encogitationer   3 years ago

      What's the problem? I watch. I masturbate. I use extra OXY in the laundry. I do it all on off days. No problem. 🙂

  25. sarcasmic   3 years ago

    Two words discredit and explain the "raid" on Trump. Two simple words prove his innocence and FBI corruption. With just two words all arguments about what he may or may no have done to justify the "raid" evaporate.

    Two words.

    Whatabout Hillary?

    1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

      Remember when the FBI raided Hillary Clinton's home and started pulling out all her files and her private e-mail server?

      Oh wait, no, that didn't happen. A subpoena was issued and she was required to turn it over.

      1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

        A subpoena was issued and she was required to turn it over.

        And then she didn't and nothing happened anyway.

      2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

        So, as chemjeff pointed out, in a long conversation yesterday that apparently is going to be rehashed here, Hillary let them have the server.

        Do we know whether Trump was asked to simply hand over the presumed cache of classified documents? Do we know if he complied or refused?

        Hmm, we don’t know anything at this point — I know, let’s make all kinds of assumptions!

        1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

          After deleting over 30,000 emails, but yeah....

        2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

          Hillary let them have the server.

          Hillary destroyed 33,000 subpoenaed emails, smashing phones, hard drives and even SIM cards.

          1. Ted   3 years ago

            She even person,my wiped the server with a dust cloth!

        3. sarcasmic   3 years ago

          Stop talking about Trump. The point of whataboutism is to distract and deflect. Whatabout Hillary? Whatabout former presidents? Whatabout Epstein? Now talk about Hillary, former presidents and Epstein and how dreadfully unfair it all is. See? You've derailed the conversation to the point where it doesn't matter what Trump did. Whatabout them, huh? Whatabout whatabout whatabout?

          1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

            Actually, what you're doing is whataboutism. Particularly when comparisons are relevant.

            Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation. (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

            1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

              I've got an idea. Why don't you defend Trump with "Whatabout....?" and then accuse the person who points it out of whataboutism!

              Oh, you just did that. Never mind.

              1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                Wikipedia did, I just helped.

              2. damikesc   3 years ago

                You do not make arguments, cunt.

          2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

            Isn’t Mother’s Lament, like, Canadian? I’ll bet he has dispassionate observations of American politics. Wouldn’t know, though, since I have him frayed out.

            1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

              White Mike already knows the answer to this and is trying to troll me. But for those that don't and are curious, here's the response I gave him two years ago:

              https://reason.com/2020/12/09/nevada-supreme-court-becomes-the-latest-to-reject-republican-election-fraud-lawsuit/#comment-8625842

              1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                Also, my brother and sister are naturalized Americans, my nieces and nephews are born American, I have American extended family, and a lot of American friends.

        4. JimboJr   3 years ago

          im sure they turned over "a server".

          A blank, probably newly built, mostly empty server....

          After deleting everything they could and then smashing the old stuff with hammers and then chucking them in bins of acid.

          But ya, she totes turned it all over. Those clintons known for their honesty

          1. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

            The Clintons are the kind of people that would engage in a questionable land deal that bankrupts a bank and only their partners are charged.

          2. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

            I don't think Hillary should be locked up over this either, fwiw. I just think it shows very poor character and judgment on her part. I don't think the FBI should have been kicking down her doors.

            I suspect there may be other things she's been involved in, regarding corruption in the Clinton Foundation, for which she might need to be locked up. But that's outside the scope of this direct comparison, where she simply had to turn over her e-mail server and answer a subpoena compared to the FBI breaking into safes and digging through all of Trump's shit. There's a direct comparison to make.

    2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      Yeah, you're a not a troll...

      1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

        Whatabout? Whataboutwhataboutwhatabout?

        1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

          Still not trolling, right?

          1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

            Just mocking you and your defense of Trump. Whatabout Epstein? Whatabout former presidents? Whatabout Hillary? Whatabout?

            Or to put it more succinctly: "Waaaaaaahhhhhhhh!"

            1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

              No you're not. You're trolling because you're an angry little drunk who hates to see his political party criticized.

              1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                First whataboutism, and now personal attacks. Stay true to form, troll.

                1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                  Yeah, just like "strawman" you don't understand how those words work.
                  You do understand "troll" though:

                  sarcasmic
                  August.12.2021 at 4:45 pm
                  I only show up to watch the duke it out while tossing in this or that provocation. Bread and circuses. This is my circus.

                  1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                    Your response: "Oh yeah? Whatabout...?"

                    Too funny.

                    1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                      Again, not what the word means.

                    2. Fat Mike's Drug Habit   3 years ago

                      Every time you get backed into a corner you do this. Do you think it makes you appear smart?

                    3. But SkyNet is a Private Company   3 years ago

                      It’s time to mute this dumb cocksucker

                    4. Ted   3 years ago

                      You really are one of life’s little punchlines.

                  2. Sevo   3 years ago

                    sarcasmic
                    August.12.2021 at 4:45 pm
                    "I only show up to watch the duke it out while tossing in this or that provocation. Bread and circuses. This is my circus."

                    I don't know why anyone bothers to respond to this drunken, steaming pile of shit.
                    He, Jeff, White Mike, Tony and several others are incapable of anything approaching honest argument; fuck 'em with a running, rusty chainsaw.

              2. HorseConch   3 years ago

                Trolls are actually funny.

          2. Ted   3 years ago

            And he’s totally not drunk either!

        2. The Encogitationer   3 years ago

          Are you Fergie from The Blackened Peas? 😉

          1. The Encogitationer   3 years ago

            Correction: The Blackeyed Peas. Though Blackening may well be involved. 🙂

    3. Nardz   3 years ago

      Get shot, copsucker

      1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

        You're the one who dreams of killing people over politics, not me.

        1. VULGAR MADMAN   3 years ago

          No, you just want agents of the state to kill people you don’t like.

          1. Ted   3 years ago

            He’s too much of a drunken pussy to do anything himself.

    4. damikesc   3 years ago

      You mean the woman who wiped her server clean and then destroyed her cell phones...and got nothing for it?

      Not even a raid?

      Fuck you're as dumb as ENB.

      ARE you ENB?

  26. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

    The legal "experts" are all fucking retarded.
    Ken white thinks the feds don't get warrenty light? He a fucking clown. Reason has literally hundreds of articles about how judges rubber stamp warrents.

    And the other cunt doest think merric garland would go after someone over politics? This is the same doj that whistle blowers are releasing documents showing a coordinated effort to punish consevatives

    This is straight up banana republic crap

    1. Use the Schwartz   3 years ago

      warrenty light? He a fucking clown warrents merric consevatives

      Maybe slow down just a little.

      1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

        Warrent lightly

        1. Use the Schwartz   3 years ago

          Nope, still wrong: WARRANT

          And it wasn't just that one misspelling.

          1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

            Good thing I don't get paid to spell correctly

    2. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      Ken White used to be an intelligent and insightful libertarian legal commentator. His "Libertarianism as 10 Questions" post is one of my go-to's for talking to people about liberty and skepticism of government.

      The total degeneration of his mental processes due to a severe case of TDS is a great loss indeed.

      1. MT-Man   3 years ago

        Yeah he seems pretty shaky on stuff lately a lot of mental gymnastics to make a point that really isn't good.

      2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        His disgust for the plebs overrode his beliefs.

  27. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    In fact, the study found that by hugely overstating the negative impact of piracy, the ad may have caused people to pirate even more...

    I'm guessing it had a net impact of zero.

  28. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

    Getting and executing this search warrant is "hugely, historically significant," writes lawyer Ken "Popehat" White. "The feds do not seek search warrants lightly.

    Weren't there several feds who have already been indicted for falsifying and hiding information in order to get bullshit warrants targeting Trump, specifically? Popehat's TDS knows no limits.

    1. Bill Dalasio   3 years ago

      Not sure about Trump, specifically. But, definitely Carter Page. And the POS who actually got convicted of it did a sentence of all of three months until he could practice law again.

      1. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

        They lied on the Page FISA warrant.

        The feds can go three steps in electronic surveillance. IOW, if you are the target, your friends are step two, your friends friends are step three. They new by going after Page that would give them the ability to spy on Trump without actually saying it.

    2. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

      Ahhh but the DC jury found him not guilty because he went after trump

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        A hero of the resistance.

  29. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    The FDA is still harassing distillers who made hand sanitizer in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    The FDA is acting like COVID wasn't actually that dangerous a thing.

  30. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    If you think God doesn't like it when people look at porn, just say that. Don't lie about it being a 'public health emergency...'

    Jesus' tears aren't a public health emergency? He could flood the earth!

    1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

      Funny, I don’t recall any commandments form The Lord about. pornography, pro or con, in the Bible. There is some stuff about adultery and coveting.

      1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        The Greek root word, porniea, appears many times in the New Testament. This term is often translated in English as whoredom, fornication, adultery, or sexual immorality. Porneia is a “catch-all” word for any type of sexual immorality.

        Also,
        Jesus: "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Mathew 5:28).

        Paul: "Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body (1 Corinthians 6:18-20).

        "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it (1 Corinthians 10:13).

        1. Ted   3 years ago

          Jesus saw Jimmy Carter coming 2000 years away.

          1. The Encogitationer   3 years ago

            No, Jimmy Carter believed the 2000-year-old Jesus myth and took his thought that mere desire is sin from there.

        2. The Encogitationer   3 years ago

          So Divine Thoughtcrime, amirite?

          I'll pass. Yay, Whore's Letters and Down With Big Brother JHVH-1! 🙂

          1. The Encogitationer   3 years ago

            Also Divine Slavery, since Paul said your body is not your own.

            You do know you're among Libertarians, right?

            1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

              Yeah, just like how your wife's enslaved you because you can't fuck around on her.

    2. The Encogitationer   3 years ago

      That requires spatio-temperal coordinates, something not found in evidence.

  31. Weigel's Cock Ring   3 years ago

    America has descended into a full-fledged "Planet of the Apes" banana republic, and Block Insane Yomomna is the gorilla-in-chief running all of it from his heavily fortified Kalorama bunker. And nobody loves it more than Park Slope Welchie Boy and his gang of Reason fugazis.

    What you corrupt left wing assholes still haven't figured out though because you're stupid is that this is just the next escalation that's going to eventually boomerang right back on you. What comes around always goes around, and those who sow the wind always reap the whirlwind.

    1. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

      No! Surely there's been some mistake! I'm loyal to Th Party! If only Comrade Obama knew about this! Somebody get him on the......*BANG*

  32. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Mobile homes are a crucial source of affordable housing—that politicians keep trying to zone out of their areas.

    God does that already with tornadoes.

    1. CLM1227   3 years ago

      Ha!

    2. EISTAU Gree-Vance   3 years ago

      Oh boy. Fist just got himself on Enco’s boring hit list.

      I’m not sure, but I think that guy might be an atheist or something?

  33. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

    With all the possible reasons why the feds might be raiding Mar-a-Lago—related to Trump's fake electors plan or his conduct on January 6, for starters—one needn't reach right away for explanations involving FBI corruption. It's no secret that we have little love for the FBI here at Reason, and the raid could well turn out to be conducted under a politicized pretense, but for now we don't really know what's going on.

    The fucking nerve of writing this paragraph. "Well, let's give the FBI the benefit of the doubt for now."

    1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      Giving law enforcement the benefit of the doubt, especially when they go after political rivals, is the libertarian way now.

    2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

      “for now we don't really know what's going on”

      Wow, yeah, that’s a powerful endorsement of the FBI.

      1. Overt   3 years ago

        Notice Mike's tactic here. No one said Reason "endorsed" the FBI. They said it was giving the FBI the benefit of the doubt. Which they are absolutely doing.

        1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

          Chemjeff continuum tactics.

        2. BrianL.   3 years ago

          Reserving judgement until you have more information is not quite the same thing as giving someone the benefit of the doubt.

    3. JimboJr   3 years ago

      remember when the FBI raided project veritas and then leaked information about it to be released through the NYT? Like 5 minutes ago?

      And we are giving them the benefit of the doubt...

    4. Knutsack   3 years ago

      She's an "enlightened" libertarian.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Woke libertarian?

    5. damikesc   3 years ago

      No shit.

      "We assume the worst of them in all cases...well, except this one"

  34. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    RIP Olivia Newton John.

    The ending of that music video turned more boys gay than the entire Golden Girls catalog!

  35. Bill Dalasio   3 years ago

    t's no secret that we have little love for the FBI here at Reason,...

    But, Trump!!!!

    That sort of thing has become pretty much de rigueur here at Reason.

    "We're skeptical of the military industrial complex, but, Trump!!!!"
    "We believe in the presumption of innocence, but, Trump!!!!"
    "We understand the permanent bureaucracy is corrupt, but, Trump!!!!"
    "Yeah the government falsifying documents to get a warrant is inappropriate, but, Trump!!!!"
    "We don't think foreign military adventurism is a good idea, but, Trump!!!!"

    At a certain point, and I think we've long passed that point, it becomes fair to ask how many libertarian principles you can sell down the river over one man and still call yourselves libertarians.

    1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

      All those “but Trump”’s on Reason’s part, surely you can provide cites of some of them… Oh, what’s that, they only exist emotionally…

      1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

        LOL you are clueless.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          Willfully clueless with extreme dedication.

      2. Bill Dalasio   3 years ago

        F**k off, White Mike. Anyone who's scanned the stories here for the last six years have seen this bulls**t. And if I slog through stories and pull chapter and verse, all you're going to do is gaslight us about how excusing authoritarian statism isn't really excusing authoritarian statism. You're a disingenuous f**k and everybody knows it.

        1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

          Yup, no purely emotional truth here.

          1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

            Stop being so dishonest.

            1. R Mac   3 years ago

              She can’t.

    2. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

      1 you can sell out you principle 1 time over a person to not be a libritarian

  36. Ali Akbar Alexander   3 years ago

    There is zero likelihood that the FBI is preparing to start raiding random Republicans' homes. Conversely, the fact that a former president isn't above the law if he did do something wrong should not be upsetting to anyone.

    God! It’s this kind of fascist nonsense ( Nardz had it right last night when he told us it was even worse— it was communist Bolshevik nonsense!) that makes this Black and gay member of the Mises/libertarian/GOP alliance want to say fuck it and have a shootout with the local constable… and afterwards a gay and preferably German-themed danse party! So unfair to Dear Leader.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Nope.

  37. Chinny Chin Chin   3 years ago

    If the US has suddenly become a banana republic, what was it during the time of Teapot Dome? Or Watergate? Or Clinton's selling of the Lincoln Bedroom to the highest bidder?

    1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      Quit socking, shrike.

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        He has to after that brutal and complete smackdown by Overt this weekend.

        1. Ted   3 years ago

          On which article?

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635696

  38. JimboJr   3 years ago

    I guess the message they are sending is that if you plan to oppose the powers that be, anything short of heads on pikes wont do.

    Its a very dangerous environment they are creating

    1. Ted   3 years ago

      The two likely outcomes are either a likely violent forced removal of the democrats, or organized codicil disobedience on a national level that will shut them down completely. Right now, I’m not sure which way it’s going to go.

    2. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

      That's EXACTLY what they're doing.

      https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/covid-data-the-ira-and-political

      I was going to talk a little more about the passage of the IRA, but in (actual) breaking news, the FBI raided Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort today. I’ve previously talked about how the FBI is now simply a political weapon (and maybe always has been), but the openness in which the administration engages in their political war is shocking. From the blatant political persecution of the 1/6 prisoners to the ‘domestic terrorist’ designation of concerned parents and covid ‘misinformers’, this administration is sending a clear message — oppose us at your peril. After all, if they can go after a former president, what chance do you have?

      What do you think the 87,000 new IRS agents funded by the Bumble Back Broker Inflation Reduction Act will be doing? It’s not to audit the 700ish billionaires in the country — it’s to attack dissenters the way that Obama attacked dissenters in the Tea Party. There’s a reason that Democrats unanimously voted down an amendment that would ban new IRS funds from targeting people earning less than 400,000 a year:

      It’s the same reason that they want to be able to snoop on your bank transactions if you make more than $600 in transactions IN A YEAR: complete control. (Ask Runnin’ Justin about that sometime) Even if you’re completely innocent and eventually exonerated, the process is the punishment. Just like a bumpy ride back to the police station is a ‘lesson’ for the town drunk, an IRS audit or FBI investigation is a ‘lesson’ for those who dare stand up to Joe Biden and his Band of Insane Merry Men Penis-having person people who identify as male.

  39. Sevo   3 years ago

    'FBI Raids Mar-a-Lago, Making Political Persecution Obvious'
    Fixed

  40. jcw   3 years ago

    here for all the MAGA tears.

    1. Sevo   3 years ago

      Here for the bullshit from all the TDS-addled shitpiles who hope the walls are closing in. Pretty sure assholes like you are going to be disappointed yet once more.
      Oh, and stuff your TDS up your ass - your head wants company.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Between sucking fascist dicks?

      1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

        While sucking fascist dicks.

    3. Foo_dd   3 years ago

      there are plenty for all of us.

    4. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      I don't think you understand that this actually underlines everything MAGA's been saying. Rather than making them cry, your boys just made them feel justified.

    5. Ted   3 years ago

      You do m ow that once all the real men (non democrats) ar slut of the way, they’ll turn on you, right?

      Nah, you’re too fucking stupid to understand that.

  41. Winston in Wonderland   3 years ago

    While they are at it, perhaps they should pick-up Hillary.
    There's an obvious double standard here. Everybody needs to be treated the same under the law.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Equal treatment? Dude, that's not how we equity.

  42. Ali Akbar Alexander   3 years ago

    Matt Walsh: They're saying they raided Trump's home because he had classified documents. This already makes little sense because Trump, as president, had the power to declassify literally anything he wanted, whenever he wanted.

    You know… every time I begin to question my gayness, my Blackness, or my membership in the GOP/Mises/libertarian alliance along comes a bit of irrefutable truth from all of these conservative intellectuals that confirm my belief in our cause. Wonderful analysis Matt! I wonder what Glem Greenwald (a left libertarian who DOES NOT support Trump… take that liberals!) is saying this morning. Is this the Reichstag Fire or— even worse— the Colin Powell speech to the UN. This Black and gay and GOP Proud member of the Mises/libertarian coalition is going to find out!

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Nope.

    2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      Quit being racist, shrike. Rhetorical blackface is still blackface.

      1. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

        Trudeau level too, not Jolson. Cringe.

  43. Nardz   3 years ago

    Only one appropriate response from the people exists.

    1. Lord of Strazele   3 years ago

      Kneel before Dark Brandon?

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        You’ve got that covered.

        1. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

          I thought it was sarcasm and funny. Then I saw it was Strudel and he was being serious. Sad.

          Should we show him the Dark Brandon meme with the Nazi symbolism?

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            Wait til Brandon finishes, first. Which could be awhile cuz he’s like 100.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      10% for the Big Guy?

  44. scottel   3 years ago

    Well, even when the Reason supported candidate Biden gives you the Police State you desired you still cannot shake your Trump Derangement Syndrome. Maybe Biden's IRS will give a Reason a pass for all your help.

    1. damikesc   3 years ago

      They will. They are only targeting those who make less than $400K, so Koch is completely safe.

  45. Sevo   3 years ago

    August 9, 1945.
    Tip your cap or lift a glass to the crew of Bock's Car, who dropped Fat Man implosion bomb on Nagasaki.
    They being the point of a very large wedge of folks whose efforts ended WWII quickly, saving the lives of likely several million people.

  46. Ali Akbar Alexander   3 years ago

    What about Hitlery’s emailz?

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Nope.

  47. Super Scary   3 years ago

    Gotta love the lefties on Twitter and in these comments taking a victory lap about this raid.

    1. Sevo   3 years ago

      You'd think they'd be a bit cautious given the number of times their hopes have been bashed. But, no, as idiotic true believers, they keep hoping this is 'the tipping point'.
      Remember the asshole Tony predicting he'd finish his term in jail? I'm just sorry TDS isn't fatal; many assholes deserve to die.

      1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

        It's like Charlie Brown and the football, only they don't realize that they banging their heads against the ground.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          Most of them think they kicked field goals every time Lucy pulled the ball away.

          1. Dillinger   3 years ago

            "field goal" now means "missed ball, fell on head" ... three points or I mob it up.

            1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

              Equity football?

    2. Nardz   3 years ago

      They have no concept of their own mortality, just mindless zombies like those bots who chased Rittenhouse after he'd already shot someone with the rifle he was still carrying.
      They do not realize they're cheering on the significant reduction in their own life expectancy.
      Their only animating force is resentment that they exist.
      Leftists are cancer.

      1. Lord of Strazele   3 years ago

        If we're "cancer", it means we're essentially unstoppable, you dumb cunt.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          Unstoppable? Until you kill the host and die with it?

        2. JasonAZ   3 years ago

          Thx for admitting your NOT a libertarian but a far left progressive Sullum.

      2. Libertarians are dickless losers   3 years ago

        You ain't gonna do shit but cry about how unfair it all is on a website you hate.

  48. Ali Akbar Alexander   3 years ago

    God! The obsequiousness of these DNC shills towards the fascists at the FBI is just revolting.

    Garry Kasparov: For those who live where the law exists only to serve the powerful and oppress the rest–as I did in the USSR and Putin’s Russia–the dictum that no one is above the law is nearly awe-inspiring.

    1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      As Garland and the FBI undertake Staasi-like raid.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Nope.

    3. Super Scary   3 years ago

      This ain't it chief. Keep trying though, I am sure you will get it eventually.

  49. Overt   3 years ago

    "The bottom line: We shouldn't let former leaders get away with whatever they want just because the optics of investigating them looks bad. But there better be something bigger here than simply taking some documents."

    This is where we see the differences in the bubbles ENB lives in and mine. No one has argued that we should let "former leaders get away with whatever they want just because the optics" look bad.

    Nobody has argued this, so for this to be her bottom line argument shows that ENB is arguing with shadows in her head. The obvious argument being made by Trump supporters is that if the FBI can raid a former president on trumped (hah!) up innuendo, they can do it to anyone who is inconvenient.

    The *real* bottom line is that the propriety of this raid depends solely on what you believe about the FBI's motivations here. Now, in my opinion, the FBI could be doing right here, but my assumption is that this is a politically motivated witch hunt. Because the FBI has shown that when it comes to Trump, they will lie about the evidence they have, withhold material information and use that to secure a warrant. Because we know they did exactly this when they used the discredited Steele Dossier to secure a FISA warrant on Trump.

    ENB and Reason have rarely, if ever, found a reason (natch!) to just give the FBI the reason of the doubt. And we know for a fact that when it comes to Trump, they have squandered any credibility. It is interesting that in this case, because The Orange Man, she is willing to give them some leeway despite their own record.

    The principled "Bottom Line" is that the FBI raiding a political opponent (whose liberties it has abused in the past) is very troubling. We don't give the FBI the benefit of the doubt. We don't wait and see. We speak strongly about how bad it is, and demand that the FBI pony up evidence. We don't demure because we dislike The Orange Man. It is that we are willing to stand up for people we dislike that makes libertarians principled.

    1. Sevo   3 years ago

      Further, we have sworn testimony regarding HRC's private comm system and (subpoenaed) evidence tampering with no action at all.
      Here we have an assumption of the existence of documents; that's all.
      If the difference doesn't suggest a certain bias to you, perhaps you're like that donkey who needs the application of the 2X4...

    2. Nardz   3 years ago

      "they will lie about [or completely invent out of thin air] the evidence they have"

    3. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

      How about if we wait until we have more information before casting wide denunciations or expressing unqualified support? Either way?

      1. Overt   3 years ago

        So you are arguing against being skeptical of a government invading the private property of a citizen?

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

          I am arguing against hysterical outrage on the basis of limited facts.

          1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

            "The FBI hasn't explained itself and we should wait patiently until they do. We don't have enough facts yet because they haven't told us anything so we're going to wait until they decide to share."

            Fuck off. Sharing information happens up front.

            1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

              Sharing information happens up front.

              This. To infinity and beyond.

          2. Overt   3 years ago

            "I am arguing against hysterical outrage on the basis of limited facts."

            Where exactly is the hysterical outrage? And if you are going to refer to some other post by someone else, then please kindly go "argue against" their points.

            I made my case that I feel it is worthwhile to demand, firmly, that the FBI prove its acts were just. Especially when dealing with a political opponent. That isn't hysterical, so why is "waiting and seeing" the better response than being skeptical of the FBI?

      2. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

        Aren't you supposed to have evidence BEFORE you get a search warrant? You're supposed to be aware of something. And if this isn't relating to classified data but some other charge or investigation, that should absolutely be public information as of yesterday.

    4. JasonAZ   3 years ago

      ENB's bubble is her arse-hole. IE, her head is up her ass.

      And again, ENB is NOT a libertarian. She's a TDS addled, far left progressive that loves hookers and abortions.

  50. Use the Schwartz   3 years ago

    "Under seige"

    LOL the Feds didn't even fire up a cigarette or shoot one dog...

  51. Jerry B.   3 years ago

    FBI Raids Mar-a-Lago, Fueling Claims of Political Persecution.

    But such claims are evidence-free, says WAPO.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/09/gops-inauspicious-knee-jerk-reaction-trump-raid/

    1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      Yeah, totally knee-jerk. The feds have been fabricating cases against him for six years, but this time it's absolutely well-founded and we should give them our complete trust.

      1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        Democratic voters the first time the party said they totally had Trump dead to rights: ( ಠ ͜ʖಠ)

        Democratic voters the 9,876 time the party said they totally had Trump dead to rights: ( ಠ ͜ʖಠ)

    2. TrickyVic (old school)   3 years ago

      Even Andrew Cuomo gets it.

      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/andrew-cuomo-on-trump-raid-doj-must-immediately-explain-reason-must-be-more-than-a-search-for-inconsequential-archives/ar-AA10tQu9?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=edaf02329a234b8db82645aee8d26898

  52. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

    Another way to think about 87,000 new IRS staff: that's one for every 3000 US adults or one for every 1800 income tax returns. If every new staff member spends all their time at work reviewing returns, they can spend 66 minutes on each one.

    1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

      My idle curiosity got the better of me.
      An army division contains from 10,000 to 15,000 men.
      So while the Pope has no divisions, the IRS will have ten to sixteen!
      The US assault force on D-day was less than the number of NEW IRS agents this farce authorizes. (The official British history gives an estimated figure of 156,115 men landed on D-Day. This comprised 57,500 Americans and 75,215 British and Canadians from the sea and 15,500 Americans and 7,900 British from the air. Ellis, Allen & Warhurst 2004, pp. 521–533.)
      Further comparisons:
      Current IRS employment is (2019) 174,000
      New agents of 87,000 is 261,000.
      US regular Army forces are 485,000.
      Oh, yes, as long as there is a political controversy, we need to hear from Florida; In 2022 Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida introduced a bill to disarm the IRS after the agency had drawn public attention for a $700,000 purchase of ammunition.

  53. Think It Through   3 years ago

    Your comment is not as smart as you think it is if you don't know the difference between tenants of liberal democracy (a good band name) and tenets of liberal democracy.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Which one provides free rent?

  54. Nardz   3 years ago

    https://twitter.com/phillyrich1/status/1557019520140730371?t=vBh7nrSdnQ-2B7E0WGz2CQ&s=19

    FLASHBACK: Judge who signed Trump's search warrant reveals that "The mere accusation itself is what can be extraordinary damaging." "I think the mere accusation can be devastating."

    [Link]

    1. damikesc   3 years ago

      The judge who gave Epstein a sweetheart deal and then, the day after resigning as a judge, took a job defending Epstein's accomplices?

      That guy?

      1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        Yeah.
        Good thing he's a judge or people would think he's unethical.

  55. Nardz   3 years ago

    https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1556984454937251840?t=ovV8Qq5vC3PxWkrwjpth-Q&s=19

    Every “But her emails” hat or shirt sold helps @onwardtogether partners defend democracy, build a progressive bench, and fight for our values.

    Just saying!
    [Link]

    That was fast—I'm told hats are now sold out.

    We'll re-stock ASAP.

    In the meantime, know that we've got shirts, too.

    1. Super Scary   3 years ago

      Isn't it great that they can rub our noses in their corruption while also making some sweet cash on the side? What a time to be alive.

      1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        I bet old Soviet politruks are green with envy right now.

  56. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

    There is zero likelihood that the FBI is preparing to start raiding random Republicans' homes. Conversely, the fact that a former president isn't above the law if he did do something wrong should not be upsetting to anyone.

    The FBI and the Democrats are just going to abuse their power for political purposes just once to get Trump. They won't do this to anyone else. Trump is special, promise.

    I am not sure which is worse, that reason might actually believe that or that it doesn't believe it but thinks any of its readers would.

    1. damikesc   3 years ago

      There is a reason why many of us stop reading articles and just go to comments.

      1. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

        There's a reason some of us started writing the articles that Reason ignores. :/

      2. Libertarians are dickless losers   3 years ago

        I assumed it was because you have no life and are animated by resentment.

    2. But SkyNet is a Private Company   3 years ago

      Only the ones who randomly went to their school board meeting

  57. creech   3 years ago

    It seems pretty fair to say that libertarians think just about every politician (and his friends and relatives) ever has done something crooked: insider trading, ruining the lives of opponents through smear campaigns, taking bribes, tax evasion, undermining the constitution, you name it. And there are so many laws we all probably break two or three per day.
    Should the FBI or other justice agencies investigate alleged criminal conduct? Yes, especially if one is accused of being a foreign agent of an unfriendly power. But such investigations should be kept confidential until such time as credible evidence is uncovered, otherwise political opponents can benefit by such allegations. [Cong. Curt Weldon (R-Pa) lost his seat when the FBI raided his daughter's office right before the election. Nothing ever came of the investigation, but the well-publicized raid was enough to sink Weldon's re-election.] So, when an investigation is public knowledge - like the raid on Trump's house - or is a one-sided hearing like the Jan.6th - we need to keep an open mind and reserve judgement until the accused and his or her defense attorneys have their say, their cross-examination of witnesses, and
    exercise all the rights of the accused (no matter the Party label behind their name.)

    1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      The FBI ruined the career of Ted Stevens and flipped the Senate seat to the Democrats because of a conviction obtained through prosecutorial misconduct and which was later thrown out of court.

  58. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    "Republicans have rediscovered skepticism of FBI power following a Monday raid of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida."

    Republicans did not "rediscover" skepticism of fbi power yesterday. Pay attention.

    It would be nice if libertarians would rediscover liberty, reason and accountability.

    1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      And who cares if they did? That doesn't make this abuse any less outrageous or reason trying to make this a "Republicans Pounce" story any less ridiculous.

  59. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    "There is zero likelihood that the FBI is preparing to start raiding random Republicans' homes. Conversely, the fact that a former president isn't above the law if he did do something wrong should not be upsetting to anyone."

    Libertarianism: unskeptical of fbi power.

    1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      There is zero likelihood that the FBI is preparing to start raiding random Republicans' homes.

      I agree. It will not be random.

      1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        She knew what she was writing.

  60. COINTELPRO   3 years ago

    The irony is Republicans themselves destroyed the 4th Amendment’s search & seizure protections.

    The so-called “War on Drugs” effectively destroyed the 4th Amendment - without the legally required constitutional amendment process.

    In 1968, U.S. Supreme Court rulings like “Terry v. Ohio” undid 200 years of constitutional precedent effectively legalizing “Stop & Frisk” warrantless searches.

    Fast forward to 2001 and Republicans then used the War on Drugs as a foundation to build the “Bush Preemption Doctrine”.

    Today America is world’s largest jailer. Americans taxpayers spent over $1.5 trillion and we have more illegal drugs today than in 1968. Legalizing some drugs would actually reduce drug use, increase tax revenue and help restore the 4th Amendment. People in prison or made under-employable, for simple marijuana use, pay less payroll taxes/other tax revenue to government treasuries and are a bigger drag on the economy.

    Can’t blame Democrats for this. As far as Trump, it appears Merrick Garland followed the 4th Amendment to both the letter & spirit of the law.

    1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      Terry v. Ohio was a Warren Court decision. Hard to blame that on the "Republicans". Also, the Democrats were just as big of a proponent of the drug war as anyone. It was Bill Clinton who signed minimum mandatory sentencing. It was a Republican, Trump, who undid it.

      Maybe you should learn a bit about history before shooting your mouth off? Talking out of your ass about subjects that you know nothing about is never a good look there Tiger.

      1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

        Warren was an Eisenhower appointee. Check. Mate.

        1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

          Yes I am aware of that. But he was hardly a conservative or a "Republican" in the sense that it means today.

          1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

            Yeah, that was meant to be sarcastic. Apologies if that did not come through.

            1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

              I thought so but wasn't sure. It was obvious. I am just dense.

    2. But SkyNet is a Private Company   3 years ago

      Republicans weren’t in charge in 1968 dipshit, (nor was the “War on Drugs” yet declared)

      1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

        Also Terry isn't what killed the 4th Amendment. Terry just lets cops search someone for weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion they might be committing a crime. What killed the 4th Amendment was the Carol Doctrine, which said you didn't need a warrant to search a car and privacy was based on whatever society deemed a reasonable expectation of it. That combined with the third party doctrine and the infamous Maryland case that said you didn't need a warrant or even probable cause to monitor the numbers called from someone's phone is what killed the 4th Amendment. Terry had nothing to do with it.

    3. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      The War on Drugs had bipartisan support until maybe eight or nine years ago. Now, there are Democrats who both support and oppose it, and Republicans who both support and oppose it.

    4. Sevo   3 years ago

      "...Can’t blame Democrats for this."

      You're full of shit.

  61. Richard Rider   3 years ago

    Doubtless Trump has commented countless felony acts. But then, so has every other "active professional."

    Read (or reread) "Three Felonies a Day" by Harvey Silveglate . He's no right-winger. Big believer is individual rights.

    Silverglate details how any prosecutor with enough resources and drive can find any "active professional" guilty of daily felonies. There are now so many federal laws -- many of which are arguably vague -- that any such detailed fishing expedition can land felonies to prosecute.

    And BTW, remember that Silverglate is talking ONLY about FEDERAL felonies. Active professionals will doubtless commit numerous transgressions violating state and local laws as well.

    1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      The entire weight of the federal government has been trying to pin a felony on Trump for seven years now. They haven't come up with anything. So, the claim that Trump is guilty of all of these felonies, which oddly are never listed, seems a bit thin at this point.

    2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

      How about, specifically, in the case of classified documents? Should it be considered a serious crime or not.

      There is speculation that the FBI raid was to find classified documents that Trump shouldn't have taken out of the White House. And, as several commenters here have mentioned, classified information was at the heart of the Hillary Clinton private server fiasco.

      I'll give my opinion: If Trump didn't do anything more than keep them in his private office, the matter should be over, and it would be egregious and bad for the unity of the American republic to prosecute him. On the other hand, Clinton stepped way over a line that she shouldn't have.

      A big question I have, though, is why the FBI had to raid his office at all. Did Trump refuse to return the documents voluntarily? If so, there may be an appropriately prosecutable crime there. Did they not give him a chance? Then I agree it was political theater to make him look bad.

      Notice there are a lot of ifs. As ENB said, we don't know many details about what happened.

      1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

        How about, specifically, in the case of classified documents? Should it be considered a serious crime or not.

        Since we know that Hillary had thousands of classified emails on an unsecured server in violation of multiple statutes and the FBI concluded that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against her", then no it isn't a serious crime.

        If you think it is, too bad. The rule was set in the Hillary case. If you want to change the rule now for Trump, it is because a piece of shit who like applying the law only when it harms people you don't like.

        1. n00bdragon   3 years ago

          The rule was set in the Hillary case.

          No, the rule was not set in Hillary's case. The rule was ignored. There is a huge difference between those two things. Hillary Clinton did a bad. She should have been punished for it. That's not a free license for Trump to do it too.

      2. Dillinger   3 years ago

        dude just stop there will be no fish at the conclusion of the expedition.

        1. MK Ultra   3 years ago

          Ice fishing in a hockey rink.

    3. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      Doubtless Trump has commented countless felony acts.

      Has he? He's been constantly under multiple investigation for six years and nobody's found so much as a late library return yet.

    4. Super Scary   3 years ago

      "Doubtless Trump has commented countless felony acts."

      Ah, that explains why he is in prison then.

  62. damikesc   3 years ago

    Not a word about Gen Milley, in a book, admitting he was working against Trump while Joint Chiefs, which is, you know, an ACTUAL insurrection?

    1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      I am starting the think that the whole January 6th charade is not about politics or winning elections. They hoped it would convince the public to turn on Trump but it hasn't and they know it. Instead, the whole thing is about giving their supporters a ready made rationalization for a military coup should Trump win in 24. If they tried that, the excuse would be "the public elected an insurrectionist who was ineligible to be President and therefore we had no choice but to nullify the election and take over."

      It sounds crazy, but anyone paying attention knows people like Shreek and Jeff would follow that party line if told to do so.

      1. chemjeff criminal pedophile   3 years ago

        "a military coup should Trump win in 24"

        Stop it. I can only get so erect.

        1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

          The thought of President for Life Millie is for Chemjeff what naked pictures of Gal Gidot are for normal people.

  63. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    Hillary Clinton not available for comment.

  64. Dillinger   3 years ago

    fueling claims? way to Woodward & Bernstein up the place.

    1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      There is no defending this, so ENB makes it a "Republicans Pounce" story.

  65. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    " "If you think God doesn't like it when people look at porn, just say that. Don't lie about it being a 'public health emergency,'" writes Cathy Reisenwitz."

    I haven't read the whole context, but is this democrats rediscovering skepticism of the "public health emergency"?

    1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      It sure sounds like that to me.

    2. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      Reisonwitz is a blast from the past. How it started out with her

      https://bitcoinmagazine.com/authors/cathy-reisenwitz

      And how it is going

      https://mobile.twitter.com/cathyreisenwitz

      Being a life time single and "sex positive" has not treated her well. There is only ten years or so between the first picture and her current Twitter profile picture. Damn.

      1. damikesc   3 years ago

        Also weird how, like most Reason writers, she went from libertarian to hardcore leftie.

        1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

          Other than Tim Kavanaugh, it never goes the other way. All of them with the exception of Kavanaugh have gone full on left after leaving Reason. Funny that.

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

            Seems like Reason is like summer camp or college freshman dorm for young wanna-be pundits to experiment with some libertarian-curious intercourse, but then go on to established norms.

            1. JimboJr   3 years ago

              Ya was thinking the same thing.

              Seems that a lot of them are budding lefties and try to write articles that are essentially the daily leftie talking point but re-examined in a way that they try and make 'libertarian'. A good example is today's: "desantis doing his job is actually bad because he's an anti freedom authoritarian" where as its just the same article CNN probably ran today.

              I think there are probably also a couple that might have some pro-freedom leanings but they quickly get captured in wanting to be with the "in-crowd" and for journalists the binary is clear. If you are sympathetic to the right at all (Bari Weiss, Greenwald, Matt Taibi) we will throw the alt-right label at you and you cant come to the parties. But if you repeat The Party talking points, it means more connections to the powerful, more potential for career advancement, more updoots and retweets by powerful famous democrats. "Journalism" (read: propaganda) in general is just so captured by the democratic party that they make it painful for anyone questioning left wing orthodoxy

              1. JimboJr   3 years ago

                Soave is a great example of the latter. He wants him a sweet talking head gig and knows that aint happening by being a libertarian.

      2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

        I like how she gets that "I OWN ME" tattoo in every shot possible. Reminds me of the guy showing his support for Ukraine who made sure his hipster tattoo was in every selfie.

        1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

          It is good she embraces that because if she didn't, I don't think she would find many buyers should she decide to sell.

          1. damikesc   3 years ago

            Yeah, huge difference in "I own me" and "Nobody really wants to own me".

      3. JimboJr   3 years ago

        "Your fave triple threat: Wonk, comedienne, OF thot. Bylines in TechCrunch, The Week, VICE, Daily Beast, etc."

        So many red flags its hard to pick out which is the most concerning but im gonna go with 'comedienne'.

        Lots of runners up though

  66. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    "Stop telling girls to cover up their bodies and start telling men to keep their fucking eyes and hands off them."

    Wait, what?

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      So the problem isn't porn, the problem is men who look at it.

      Riiiight.

    2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      It's amazing how quickly the "sees positive" are puritans in disguise.
      .

      I was listening to a recent interview of a woman who was critical of the sexual revolution. I didn't listen to the entire thing so I'm not going to say I agree with her basic thesis, but she did point out some very interacting contradictions in the "sex work is work" movement.

      One in particular (British politics) was the parties that argued that sex work is work, no different from working at Starbucks or selling real estate were, to a one, supportive of a bill that made it illegal to trade sex for rent during covid. So clearly, sex work isn't work, just like Starbucks or real estate... At all. Sex is so powerful, and such a potential point of exploitation that we make sex work for rent illegal.

      The right can certainly be criticized on issues of morality and sex. But This has been one of the central criticisms of the left on the topic of sex in general. "Sex isn't a big deal, get over it! "

      "a man leered at my ankles, I feel like I was raped!"

      1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

        "Sex positive" is usually just a polite term for misandry. Women can be whores and fuck who they want but men are supposed to be loyal and not even look at a woman without permission.

        1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

          I think women should be able to be whores and fuck who they want, but at some point during that transaction, a man might touch you, or express interest in touching you. Quit acting like it's the patriarchy gone wild when they do.

          1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

            The problem isn't men touching them or looking at them. The problem is the wrong man touching them or looking at them. They want men to magically know that it is okay to do that. They want a rejected advance to be treated the same as a sexual assault. It all boils down to the level of an 8th grade girl telling her boyfriend "that nerd looked at me".

            1. Nardz   3 years ago

              "They want a rejected advance to be treated the same as a sexual assault."

              100%
              And this is the purpose of the Sports Media push against Deshaun Watson.

      2. damikesc   3 years ago

        I'd also argue that trying to lower what sex means has done women precious little good but it has helped certain men immensely.

    3. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      Stop telling girls to cover up their bodies and start telling men to keep their fucking eyes and hands off them.

      stop telling people to lock their doors and start telling thieves to stay out of the house!

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Wow, so every posh neighborhood sight-seer is a thief? And every singles bar patron is a rapist?

        1. Nardz   3 years ago

          There are no rules, only weapons.

      2. damikesc   3 years ago

        "How dare you look at what I present willingly!!!"

    4. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      There is a partisan denial of biology here. Remove the veneer of civilization and we have Homo sapiens, who, like other apes (and most animals), instinctively puts on sexual displays to gain attention. And instinctively responds to displays hoping for some action.

      Letting one group define the rules, whether puritan priests or 4th wave feminists, just pre-judges guilt to suit their agenda.

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

        whether puritan priests or 4th wave feminists

        I'm finding it increasingly difficult to tell these groups apart.

  67. Ali Akbar Alexander   3 years ago

    Candace Owens:The FBI must be legally and formally dissolved.

    What happened to President Trump is positively stunning and a mark of unchecked government power.

    I no longer recognize the country I live in. Left or right, we must all come together to fight this evil.

    Can I just say as a gay (don’t forget Black) member of the Mises/libertarian alliance who is GOP Proud like Caitlin and Milo that I am 119% behind the new motto of my fellow gay, Black conservatives: Defund the police! I mean, when police activity is directed against poor Black men that’s one thing. Somebody needs to keep them in line. But when it comes to crimes by old rich White men that’s different. Don’t they know that old rich White men pay for my cocaine when they donate to my givesendgo account so that they can own the libs. If I don’t get that money how am I supposed to pay for my Blow. Jesus Christ @FBI Think, man, Think!

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Nope.

  68. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    "I'm sex positive!"

    "right, which means you're a puritan in a halter top."

  69. Dillinger   3 years ago

    >>RIP Olivia Newton John

    yeah I liked "Magic" ... every girl in the neighborhood had that Xanadu album

    1. The Encogitationer   3 years ago

      She was not only great and sexy in Xanadu and Grease, but a great Pop musician and a woefully underestimated Country singer. The purists in Nashville actually didn't think she could do Country because she was foreign.

      Hell, Aussies can sing about drinkin', cheatin', killin', and goin' to Hell as much as anyone else! (It's a jackpot when they're all in the same song, with bonus points if you include Mama, prison,pickup trucks, and damned ol' trains!). 🙂

      I miss Olivia too! Everybody tip an Aussie Foster can in her memory!

      Olivia Newton-John 1975 Please Mister Please
      https://youtu.be/3007OXu2dNc

      Olivia Newton-John Have You Never Been Mellow (Live 1975)
      https://youtu.be/4IFQZyxxyyM

      1. Dillinger   3 years ago

        yep.

  70. Unable2Reason   3 years ago

    If "no one is above the law" then why is Hilldog still out on the streets?

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      No one with a MAGA hat is above the law.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        If by law you mean morally acceptable (and allowable) then I know many Democrats who indeed put MAGA below the law.

    2. Tony   3 years ago

      Either she didn't commit any crimes or Republicans are so incompetent they couldn't find them after 33 hearings on Benghazi and countless other hearings on countless other subjects throughout her career.

      At some point, doesn't reality have to leak into your brains? Are they that water-tight?

      1. Unable2Reason   3 years ago

        She kept top secret documents at home on an easily hacked server then wiped them securely so she couldn't be caught. I guess Trump's mistake was taking paper copies.

        1. Tony   3 years ago

          No she didn't, and that was investigated out the ass for her emailz and she lost an election over the phony outrage about it. So what's the problem again?

          1. Unable2Reason   3 years ago

            She escaped justice.

            1. Tony   3 years ago

              We all paid for her non-crime.

              1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                If that was non-crime then Trump must be eligible for sainthood.

          2. JimboJr   3 years ago

            "she lost an election over the phony outrage"

            She lost an election because she has no original thoughts, and cant answer a question that isnt in DNC poll tested and approved politico speak, sprinkled with pandering toward whatever group is the Important (TM) today. She cant open her mouth without appearing, to anyone listening, that she is the quintessential fake politician who cares about nothing else in the world but making sure she says the right thing to get more power. She oozes it. She is the embodiment of everything normal people hate about politicians, all wrapped up into one power hungry cunt.

            She turned people off so much that they figured "ah fuck it, ill roll the dice on the apprentice guy".

            1. Tony   3 years ago

              Everyone has an opinion about why she lost, most of them neglecting to mention the fact that she got millions more votes than the other guy.

              1. JimboJr   3 years ago

                "most of them neglecting to mention the fact that she got millions more votes than the other guy."

                Probably rightfully so being that the national popular vote is entirely irrelevant.

                Did she also get more shamrocks or SchruteBucks than him too? Any other irrelevant metrics that wouldn't result in her becoming president?

                1. Tony   3 years ago

                  It's not irrelevant if we're discussing reasons people did or didn't vote for her. I know why the electoral college didn't give her a majority.

                  She won the popularity contest.

            2. JimboJr   3 years ago

              Ill prewarn you (because I am so nice) that the two being groomed to run when Biden either croaks or is carried to the Alzheimer's ward have almost the exact problems Hillary did.

              Pete is every bit of a disingenuous power hungry sociopath and is basically young gay Hillary. Kamala Harris is black Hillary, but unfortunately when she tries to politico-speak it comes out in word salads. So like Hillary if she was really poorly spoken. But at their core, they are all the same exact creature. Elite, out of touch, poll-tested sociopaths who only want power and everyone with a brain can see exactly that.

              So dont be surprised (and you shouldn't be, they constantly have dismal public approval) when the DNC runs them and they get absolutely ass blasted by Desantis. Its going to be completely predictable, and somehow you folks wont see it coming a mile away.

              1. Tony   3 years ago

                DeSantis isn't a sociopath? Or are you telling me he went to Harvard and Yale and yet actually believes that drag queens are a threat to children?

                I'm on record as supporting Potted Plant (D), so I don't give a fuck.

                1. JimboJr   3 years ago

                  Well they are a threat to children.

                  Unless you are cool openly pushing grooming children

                  1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                    Tony? You bet he is.

                  2. Tony   3 years ago

                    So we're all just supposed to jump on board with this concept of ungroomed children?

                    I realize you people all grew up on derelict farms, but a shower and a haircut isn't optional if you want to make it in the modern world.

          3. Phlinn   3 years ago

            So... you don't remember that the AG offloaded the decision whether to prosecute to the FBI (which they shouldn't have done) and that Comey recommended against charging based on lack of intent, which isn't in the law at hand, and declared it "extremely careless"so they could avoid charging her for gross negligence. She DID have classified document on her email server, and arranged for it to be wiped prior to being subpoened, which should have been treated as spoliation of evidence.

            1. Phlinn   3 years ago

              Meant to add before I posted, I think mens rea SHOULD be requirement for prosecution, and as such I lukewarmly supported not charging Hillary. But she definitely mishandled classified material and the idea that she didn't know what she was doing is hard to swallow. Charging her could have required charging Obama, as argued at https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/09/obama-email-alias-clinton-why-fbi-didnt-prosecute-hillary/

  71. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

    Yes, the IRS needs to be able to audit people, but

    Fact check: false.

    Eliminate the IRS

  72. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

    Anti-piracy ads made people want to pirate movies.

    Anti-piracy ad plays before movie.

    "Wait, i can just pirate this shit instead? Sweet"

  73. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

    "It's hard for me to believe Merrick Garland would authorize FBI agents to obtain a search warrant solely to find classified material, given that mishandling that material rarely results in a case that DOJ would charge," tweeted former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.

    lol, just lol. Imagine taking this seriously? Imagine believing the FBI and Merrick Garland are in any way acting in good faith and unbiased manner? hahahahah fucking a. I can't imagine being such a naive idiot.

    1. Cyto   3 years ago

      Didn't the white house deny any knowledge of this? How far from rational is a press that reports that uncritically.
      ?

    2. JasonAZ   3 years ago

      Calling ENB naive is an insult to naive people. She's fully aware. But TDS is at stage 4 and she's got a progressive narrative to protect.

      1. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

        In her defense that was a quote from " tweeted former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti."

  74. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

    This is a really bad move on democrat side. I dont care much for Trump and I doubt he will be the next president, but this move is transparently political and will galvanize a base against the Dems.

    Even if this raid was totally legitimately unbiased which any sane person should doubt, you can't avoid the LOOK of corruption and regime action. It's just not worth, no matter what, for the Dems. Super bad move.

    Kind of like how banning abortion at conception is a bad move tactically for Repubs. Not saying it's not right (or wrong) but tactically, the timing is bad for them to start banning very early abortion. And likewise, this going after Trump thing, even if Trump did do some minor infraction of holding onto classified docs (and seriously no one actually cares), it's going to bite them in the ass.

  75. Cyto   3 years ago

    The FBI raid on Trump got Republicans to rediscover skepticism of the FBI???

    Uh??? Where have you been since 2016?

    We are at a point where people on the right see the FBI announce that they have uncovered a terrorist plot and they immediately start asking how many informants are in the group.

    Did you miss the spying on Trump, faking a Russian connection to justify a multi-year special prosecutor and framing people for crimes they did not commit?

    Did you miss the "conspiracy to kidnap Michigan Governor Whitmer"?

    Or the circles of Republicans chanting Fed! Fed! Fed! As someone attempted to exhort the crowd to occupy the capital?

    What an odd take.

    1. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      Yeah any Republican partisan who is just now finally starting to become skeptical of the FBI (or any other three letter agency) is an idiot.

    2. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      And let's be clear. If the dems maintain full control they WILL use the ATF against gun owners, who overwhelmingly skew right. That is the whole fuckign POINT of the ATF and now they will just take the gloves off and go for it.

  76. Longtobefree   3 years ago

    I must admit, I am confused.
    Are the dems trying to come up with a way to keep Trump from running, like another bogus witch hunt; or are they trying to get him mad enough to run again so they can run against him instead of vainly trying to defend their full on fascism?

    1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      It is the bogus witch hunt. They know if he runs he is likely to win and they are terrified at that prospect.

      1. Fat Mike's Drug Habit   3 years ago

        The irony being that the bogus witch hunts only serve to fire up his base and make him more likely to win.

        Just like Barack Obama was gun salesman of the year, Team Blue is the most effective campaign team Donald Trump could ever hope for.

    2. Tony   3 years ago

      The Dems aren't doing anything, law enforcement is.

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        Nobody believes you.

        1. Terry Anne Lieber (Don't Feed Tony)   3 years ago

          Don't feed him, please.

          1. Tony   3 years ago

            What a sad day to be a libertarian. A corrupt, authoritarian politician got held accountable for something.

            1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

              What a sad day to be a libertarian.

              You're not a libertarian. You've said you weren't many times in the past here.

              A corrupt, authoritarian politician got held accountable for something.

              Wow, first time for everything. Who was that?

  77. Personcommenting   3 years ago

    Assuming we aren't getting rid of the IRS, they do actually need more people to answer phones and process things. They don't need that many more audit agents, but unless they stop sending out computer-produced form letters that give one of 8 reasons you could be getting the letter they need people to answer the phone.

    1. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      Cut some agents and put them on the phone banks.

    2. CindyF   3 years ago

      Those are not the positions they will be filling with these new agents. The new agents will be the ones issued those firearms and all that ammo the IRS has stocked up on.

      Did you really think they would be hiring more people to assist taxpayers with questions or problems? Oh, you sweet summer child, bless your heart!

  78. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

    "Republicans have rediscovered skepticism of FBI power following a Monday raid of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida."
    --------
    Once sentence in and we've already struck out. Who's been yelling from the rafters about malfeasance in the FBI for the last decade, again?

  79. JohnZ   3 years ago

    After all the FBI has done and been involved in for the past seven decades, is it any wonder people have become not just skeptical but
    downright angry.
    Garland authorized this. He hates Trump as much as he hates his supporters and anyone else who isn't a shrieking liberal/ LGBTQXYZ or violent leftists, ANTIFA/BLM.
    McCarthy threatens to impeach Garland after the republican take back the House. Let's see if he keeps his word.

    1. Tony   3 years ago

      Haven't you people accused every Democratic president and Democratic candidate for president of being a master criminal? All of a sudden it's unthinkable now that it's Trump, a guy who brags about how corrupt he's been his whole life?

      The brainstem isn't the only part of your brain you can use, you know.

      1. John C. Randolph   3 years ago

        Jimmy Carter wasn't a crook, he was just hopelessly incompetent. The goatfuckers knew he didn't have the guts to ask the congress to declare war.

        -jcr

      2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        Imagine believing that the Clintons weren't on the take, and that Obama wasn't illegally spying on the press and opposition.

  80. Tony   3 years ago

    It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone possessing object permanence that Trump might be criminally corrupt. He's still trying to steal the last election.

    On the other hand, there are other people in the world who've been alleged to have committed misdeeds, so logically speaking Trump is innocent as a newborn fawn.

    1. John C. Randolph   3 years ago

      Trump might be criminally corrupt.

      If that were the case, why did the lefturds put so much effort into making shit up to smear him?

      -jcr

      1. Tony   3 years ago

        What did they make up that he didn't admit to on national television?

        1. John C. Randolph   3 years ago

          I suppose the whole "Russia collusion" thing is still an article of faith for lefturd maggots like you, eh?

          -jcr

          1. Tony   3 years ago

            Not an article of faith at all:

            [T]he [Mueller] report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion" but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts. It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government, about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations. Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American."

            1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

              We both know that the Mueller report doesn't actually say that. That's why you didn't quote it directly.

      2. Sevo   3 years ago

        "Trump might be criminally corrupt."

        This from the deluded pile of shit who swore Trump would end his term behind bars.
        From the raging asshole watched Trump subjected to 4 years of fishing expeditions with the total result of some parking tickets owed by people who knew him.
        From a lefty scumbag who still repeats outright lies.

        1. Tony   3 years ago

          The guy is still trying to steal the last election. He commits treason about once a week on national TV. He directed a violent mob to assassinate Congress and seize power for himself, again on national TV. He has expressed a desire to fuck his daughter on national TV multiple times.

          Just what does he have to do before you unclamp your lips from his anus?

    2. damikesc   3 years ago

      Given who the President is now, Trump is snow white pure.

      1. John C. Randolph   3 years ago

        Talk about damning with faint praise!

        -jcr

      2. Tony   3 years ago

        Care to back up that claim with a fact or even an accusation?

        1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

          Burisma, Hunters Laptop, Pay for Play, Hunter Biden is an artist, etc.

  81. John C. Randolph   3 years ago

    FBI had no reason to suspect that Trump would destroy evidence, he wasn't even home.

    When you send a pack of goons in body armor, armed to the teeth, to do a job that could be handled by one dweeb with a subpeona, you're obviously up to no good.

    This may be one time the FBI has bitten off more than they can chew. Most of the people they pull this shit on can't afford to litigate over it.

    -jcr

  82. n00bdragon   3 years ago

    The amount of people sucking off Dear Leader in this fucking thread is depressing. I swear to god, Trump could skull fuck a congolese war orphan to death in Times Square and people here would defend it as an unfair attack by the media on an upstanding red blooded American.

    I mean really, who doesn't hide documents in their basement? Clinton did it and got away with it. That means it's okay! So unfair!

    Or maybe, just maybe, the both of them should be in jail.

    1. Sevo   3 years ago

      The number of TDS-addled assholes in this thread is depressing.
      Fuck off and die, TDS-addled shitpile.

    2. John C. Randolph   3 years ago

      You don't have to like Trump to recognize that this raid was way the fuck out of line.

      -jcr

      1. Tony   3 years ago

        It's possible that the FBI under Trump-appointed Chris Wray and noted cautious moderate Merrick Garland is acting recklessly and this will be their worst scandal since Waco.

        Or they could have some really dark shit. We'll just have to reserve judgment until we know more.

        1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

          "Or they could have some really dark shit."

          Do you want to bet, Tony?
          The last eleven-thousand, six-hundred and the ninety-four times they promised you that they had him turned out to be nothingburgers. Are you ready to bet the farm on this one?

          1. JimboJr   3 years ago

            In fact, many of the times led to breathless media coverage for months at a time, chopping up the Muller and impeachment nothingburgers in every possible way, and savoring every bite.

            But nothing of consequence other than Rachel Maddow, Adam Schiff and Jim Acosta swearing to us the walls were closing in

          2. Sevo   3 years ago

            I'd suggest that the shitbag offer to commit suicide if he is, yet again, wrong.
            eat shit and die, asshole.

      2. Sevo   3 years ago

        Nor do you have to be at all cognizant of TDS to recognize that n00bdragon is a TDS-addled steaming pile of shit.
        n00bdragon, please eat shit and die; make the world a better place.

    3. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      Or maybe, just maybe, this is a reflection of the regime using the FBI against its enemies while protecting their own. (regardless of the which side you hate or love)

      When the FBI perp-walks a prominent national level Dem for trivial bullshit I might start thinking there are dispassionate law-and-order folks in the FBI. Until then, it's obvious they are an arm of the regime and nothing more.

      1. Tony   3 years ago

        The mole people are already jerking off to civil war fantasies over this, and you think the FBI didn't dot its i's and cross its t's? They had probable cause according to a judge.

        Or it could be yet another giant conspiracy. Why not? It's not like you're going to pay close attention to any facts.

        1. MaxBlancke   3 years ago

          Well, they could not find a Federal Judge to sign the warrant, so they got a Magistrate.

    4. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

      Maybe neither of them, and we should just examine how both have been handled. Or maybe both of them and we should still point out the double standards.

      1. Joe Brandon   3 years ago

        ^

  83. Pear Satirical   3 years ago

    Remember when Trump had a phone call with a foreign head of state about looking into corruption allegations of a former government official and his son? And remember how said phone call was justification for impeachment since that particular ex-government official was likely to become a political rival?

    Now explain to me how this isn't at the very least the same thing, if not 10 times worse!

    1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

      Uhm....shit.

    2. Joe Brandon   3 years ago

      "And Pear S. comes in with a brutal right cross"

  84. uncommon wealth   3 years ago

    If you commit a political crime, you get a political prosecution. He collaborated political coup, so he deserves to get raided and put behind the bars, period.

    1. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

      Oh, this is about Jan 6th, then?

    2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      To be fair Biden probably wasn't aware he was participating.

    3. Sevo   3 years ago

      If you are afflicted with a raging case of TDS, we can all hope it's fatal.
      Fuck off and diem, shitbag.

      1. raspberrydinners   3 years ago

        Oh here's King Snowflake again. Getting all triggered that someone is talking bad about his daddy.

    4. NOYB2   3 years ago

      There is a fine line between the rule of law and authoritarianism.

      You are far beyond that line, in Stalinist totalitarianism territory.

      1. raspberrydinners   3 years ago

        Oh no, someone suffering consequences for their actions?

        Better call it totalitarianism because it goes against my king.

  85. raspberrydinners   3 years ago

    Haha, of course this is the bullshit title reason goes with.

    Only saw this man commit crimes on a near daily basis for 4+ years and knew he had classified papers in his possession long after being president that he had no right to.

    One would hope the DoJ actually prosecutes and if guilty, just hang the traitor high.

  86. Uomo Del Ghiaccio   3 years ago

    The raid on Trump's home is clearly a political move and any argument that it isn't political is based on believing an impressively long list of lies.

    Trump may not be very presidential, but Democrat party operatives and the corporate media have been peddling lies about Trump for years. Trump was mediocre as a president, but not any more of a disaster than many other presidents. Clearly not the threat to democracy that was claimed.

    Joe Biden is a walking disaster and is a threat to democracy when you include his handlers and other slimy operatives. This does not mean that Trump should be president, but rather both men are unfit and way too old.

    Joe Biden in going after Trump particularly in such a public manor is very damaging. Joe Biden is also damaging many other aspects of our so-called free society in his attempts to install single party governance. His authoritarian tendencies for decades made Joe Biden unsuited for public office, but now he is the president wreaking havoc.

    1. Libertarians are dickless losers   3 years ago

      Nobody will take you seriously until you put on a giant foam hat and cry.

  87. TallDave   3 years ago

    "Republicans have rediscovered skepticism of FBI power"

    even for ENB...

  88. NM Dave   3 years ago

    I doubt there's much of anything Trump isn't capable of, but this smacks of being a political stunt, and the Biden administration has taken political stunts to a whole new level. He should remember that he won't anyways be President and the next president will likely be a Republican. Is this really the door he wants to kick open? Even Trump, as stupid as he is, didn't actually go after Hillary Clinton, likely a much easier target.

  89. Liberty Lover   3 years ago

    6 and a half years of lies, fail trials and political harassment, and Reason can't see it. Remember this started when Trump announced, before he was even elected.
    Reason writers, try taking off those Blue woke glasses. What a bunch of partisan fools.

  90. TJJ2000   3 years ago

    ^THIS +10000000
    They've been after President Trump from the very beginning.
    The Nazi's(National Socialists) witch-hunt just added on another level.

  91. Claptrap   3 years ago

    Yeah, that was a pretty brutal lead-in. I also loced this:

    And the whims of a given administration—like the Obama-era obsession "fighting sex trafficking" by arresting sex workers—certainly influence FBI actions and priorities.

    Gotta massage those bugbears.

  92. Ben of Houston   3 years ago

    Skip the slur. You had a very good point until you said that.

    I would also remind you of the fact that the FBI had clear evidence of vice presidential corruption for years, including a computer that was one step short of a confession, but refused to investigate.

    Or the FBI that raided Project Veritas for information concerning a document that they already had (presumably Biden's daughter's diary), and within days, the New York Times had Veritas's confidential documents.

    The Republican party has an exceptionally low opinion of the FBI right now for darn good reason.

  93. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

    They also orchestrated a plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan.

  94. R Mac   3 years ago

    “puppets in the media”

    You answered your own question.

  95. Ben of Houston   3 years ago

    Dude. Watch your language. You have good points but then undermine everything with the insults. You are giving people excuses to ignore you.

  96. Kanty Satanist   3 years ago

    If you think she's such a "dumb cunt," why don't you write your own libertarian column and stop reading hers?

    I do not understand people who continue to help keep the lights on at publications they hate by reading them. If I didn't know better, I would think that all you want is to be a victim.

    Well, in the immortal words of the schoolyard bully: STOP HITTING YOURSELF.

  97. R Mac   3 years ago

    It’s telling that’s the only thing she brought up about the DOJ under Obama. Because using the banking system to go after political enemies, or selling guns to cartels to go after 2A would have been to on-point.

  98. R Mac   3 years ago

    And arrested one of her potential adversaries in the next election right before the primary for being outside the capital on 1/6.

    Which I’m sure had nothing to do with her administration being one of the states that were ruled to have illegally changed voting laws that changed from Trump to Biden after everyone went to bed.

  99. R Mac   3 years ago

    Sarc spinning commences in 3,2…

  100. Sevo   3 years ago

    Well, TRUMP!
    See how easy that is?

  101. Yatusabes   3 years ago

    I betcha ENB planted the photos in the alleged White House toilet while Maggie H from the NYT wrote the impeccably timed article to coincide with FBI agents carrying, wait for it, AR-15 rifles. Yeah, those rifles

  102. Yatusabes   3 years ago

    People are stressed. This is a comments box forum. Mass was wonderful last Sunday and our visiting priest gave a wonderful sermon. Alas, we are imperfect, corporal, visceral beings. If someone manages their stress in ways you disapprove, given the near calamity of our nation, you can go fuck yourself, you pathetic POS

    C: Go in peace
    R: Thanks be to God

  103. Claptrap   3 years ago

    Way better. Flashbangs get more fun and effective as it gets deeper into the night. They might have even been able to lob one into Melania's sex cage to "unintentionally" maim her.

  104. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

    Oooh, a lot of ENB defenders coming out of the woodwork today, all of whom are offended by the word "cunt". Or, more likely, one using a bunch of sockpuppets.

  105. Dizzle   3 years ago

    Oh I don't read her articles. I just skim them for her gaslighting headlines and then talk shit on her because I come for the comments not the articles.

  106. Zeb   3 years ago

    It's a tricky thing all around. Obviously there are circumstances where violence is called for. And you want to identify those times before it's too late. But you also don't want to cross that line too soon or most people will not be on your side and you will just waste your life for no good reason. As far as I can see, you and Nardz aren't out there shooting leftists either, so you do seem to understand that. But then why be so hostile to people who aren't yet willing to publicly say what you are saying? What are you doing about it other than being argumentative on the internet?

  107. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

    How seriously do you take the declaration of independence and the second amendment?

    I think that most people consider the Declaration of Independence to be little more than a document of grievances against King George, an incidental, if necessary, precursor to the Constitution. They are wrong.

    The Constitution limits the federal government and, after the 14th Amendment, limits the government within the states, whereas the DoI defines liberty and outlines the express purpose of government. Without the DoI, the Constitution is meaningless.

  108. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

    I think elections still matter. The Democrats don't seem to be very happy about their impending doom in the midterms.

  109. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

    this is patently absurd. The recent Inflation Expansion Act would not have passed if it was voted on after the midterms.

    There is a huge problem for Dems with these midterms. if they lose EITHER side of the congress they will not get any of their insane shit done.

  110. Dillinger   3 years ago

    no no don't throw me in the briar patch!

  111. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

    It's been my experience that the ones who call for violence the loudest tend to fall into the third group once bullets start actually flying. And I think that's the group Nardz fits into.

  112. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

    I think Overt is making a remark about the DoJ's Quixotic crusade against right wing 'extremists' (the modern Salem Witch Trials, and Red Scare) and their obvious desire to be able to jail these people (as we've seen with the trials of the January 6th rioters and the backfired trials of the Whitmer kidnapping conspiracy that wasn't). I'm not reading it as a desire to see people jailed, but a statement of their obvious goals and desire.

  113. Nardz   3 years ago

    Of course it is, because you get butthurt and personalize everything.
    You got pissed off when I asked "what's the line, vets" and then followed up by saying "I don't think there really is a line, that you'll continue making excuses for why not upholding the oath isn't breaking the oath".
    You claimed I was wrong... and then proved my point exactly.
    Do whatever you want, man, it's your life.
    There are plenty of reasons not to do anything. Just don't lie about why you're making the choices you're making.

    You may have a legitimate difference of opinion about what the red line is. And that's a topic worthy of discussion. It's a very important discussion. And it doesn't do a damn bit of good to keep avoiding it and bitching about those of us who bring it up.

  114. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

    I've answered that question multiple times, and no didn't say there was no line but that it is different for everyone, but nothing can occur in a vacuum, that it takes organization and is a process. You didn't like that and mischaractetized what I stated, to confirm to your preconceptions and parameters.

    I don't necessarily disagree that violence may be necessary and possibly even unavoidable. I have also told you this. But I don't think it's time because enough people aren't willing to take part in it yet. As I've also told you.
    You're Sam Adams, who laid the ground work in many ways, but then disappeared into largely animosity once the revolt actually began.

    And yes I do take it personally when you attack veterans for not doing enough according to you (and I've asked you point blank if your not calling for us to commit violence what are you calling for us to do, which you've never answered). Because despite your protests to the contrary, this line of attack really is calling for us veterans to commit violence. It's self evident that's what your statement means and your refusal to offer alternative actions to violence, that you would find acceptable. And I've also stated it isn't a single line but a spectrum and is different for every individual, some have already crossed that line, while others aren't quite there. Very few veterans I know actually believe that our current government is governing via the Constitution and many believe, myself included, that they're clearly violating the Constitution. And as I've told you, we are acting, via the system the Constitution has created, elections and petitioning our government officials. You've stated that this is inadequate, but refuse to state what besides violence would be adequate. Thus, it's clear what you're actually desiring.

    Also, fuck yes I take it personally because it is a personal attack on a group I belong to. If you substituted Montanans I would take it personally too. As would most anyone from whatever group you substitute. Fuck, that isn't hard to fucking understand, and your concern trolling that I shouldn't take it personally, is completely fucking asinine. Look at my fucking handle, and then think about why I would take your criticism, which is unwarranted in my opinion unless you are calling for us to commit violence, personally.

    This is like you calling me a Ukrainian sycophant for stating Russia was at fault since they initiated the war, while I also condemned the US governments actions and Ukraine's actions. which you have also done multiple times. Because you don't leave room for nuance. Anyone who doesn't fully support your position, you generally classify as being opposed to your position.

    Which brings up the idea of armed revolt. Most people won't support armed revolt until it's clear the government has initiated the violence. We don't know who fired the first shot at Lexington Green, but we do know it was the direct result of British, e.g the governments actions. While I don't disagree things are bad, I don't agree that it's time to abandon attempts to reform and return it to what it's supposed to be through established systems rather than violence. But I also think that time is very short. I think the next two or three elections, 2022, and 2024, and possibly 2026 depending on the outcome of the previous two, is about all the time left before many will conclude violence is necessary. And yesterday's actions definitely made violence more likely. Especially if they don't provide something like nuclear codes or some other smoking gun like someone else mentioned. I also think the recent Inflation Reduction Act, passed without any Republican support and clearly contrary to the needs of the majority of the country, also has moved us closer to violence. If the Republicans fail to win an overwhelming victory November, especially if they fail to even win a simple majority, especially if the bulk of their losses comes from the same swing states that decided 2020, I think it's game over. I'm not so certain it won't be game over even if the results go the Republican direction but in a very narrow victory. Because all the fundamentals points to an overwhelming Republican victory, and the government and media have failed to provide adequate evidence that the level of fraud and illegal rule changes in 2020 didn't change the outcome. In fact I think the polling shows the majority clearly believe that the rule changes were designed to benefit Biden not combat COVID, and that fraud did occur as a result. But the polling also shows that the majority are uncertain how much fraud. Also, the polling suggests that the majority don't believe the riots on January 6th were an armed insurrection, but they also condemn the riots and Trump's rhetoric unsettled many people, (even if he was correct). If anything questionable occurs this November, I think that'll be last straw for a growing number of Americans.

    It isn't that we're supporting the government, but rather it's that we want to give the system another chance, and hope we don't need to rise up in revolt. I'm hoping that everything goes smoothly and there is no grounds to question the outcome this fall. And additionally, I hope that when the Republicans win, that they don't continue business as usual, and actually utilize their new power to begin to address people's concerns. Because I do believe that alternatives to violence are becoming less possible every day since January 20th, 2021. And when that violence occurs, it will most likely take everyone by surprise.

    I doubt most thought violence was imminent on April 18th, 1775. I also have noted the difference was that despite opposing violence, the Revolutionaries had prepared for it in case. I don't see much organization at this point. I see that drastically changing if we wake up on November 9th to the same surprise that most experienced on November 4th, 2020. Most people went to bed assuming Trump was clearly ahead only to wake up to his losing every single swing states that enacted the questionable and largely illegal (as the courts have since ruled multiple times) election changes. It's also why I don't think they can get away with the same or similar tactics this time. Pennsylvania is what worries me, because they haven't really addressed the issues voters had, and Oz is a weak candidate and it's very possible that race will decide the Senate (although I think Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin and Georgia are looking much better for the Republicans even if Warnock is ahead in the polls, he hasn't polled above 50% and hasn't polled more than 10 points ahead of Biden's approval in the state which is historically the ceiling for an incumbent from the same party of an unpopular president, in a swing state. If the Republican perform well in these four states, and don't blow a race in safer Republican territory, than Pennsylvania may not matter. Alaska is also to some degree worrisome, because I see Murkowski is toast in the primary, but she is egotistical enough to run again as a write in, but her popularity is so bad, that such a run won't be enough to get her elected this time, but may be enough to split the Republican vote enough to allow the Democrat a shot at winning a plurality victory. The new Montana district 2 will also be an interesting one, I think the Republicans have the edge, but the powerhouses of the Democrats are almost all in district 2. The incumbent at large is running in district 2 which also is a plus for Republicans.

  115. Nardz   3 years ago

    ^bingo

    And living in denial of this fact, refusing to confront reality, isn't productive for anyone but the powers that be.

  116. CLM1227   3 years ago

    Being willing to suffer for the truth is a Christian concept people need to start readying themselves for. Revolt doesn’t happen until people are actively persecuted for doing and saying what is right and true.

    If we are concerned people aren’t angry enough over the situation, this is the place to start.

    For myself, I am torn on getting my kids to adulthood (or at least late teenage years) first vs actively seeking opportunities to speak out. One thing I won’t do is back down if confronted.

  117. Tony   3 years ago

    Violating the presidential records act, at minimum, i.e., stealing from you and me who own those documents.

    You've been thieved. Aren't you mad?

  118. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

    They wont do dick but the also wont pass the Inflation Creation Act 2.0

  119. The Encogitationer   3 years ago

    Will Nardz and you say that Bad Company is Bad Company for praising Ukraine's two colors and the Rainbow and then order them all shot?

  120. R Mac   3 years ago

    Nobody cares about your opinion you vile piece of garbage.

  121. Tony   3 years ago

    I'm cursed with an abundance of empathy, so I feel your pain dude.

    It's only my rational brain that takes stock and remembers that you chose to fall in love with the most grotesque human being in fact or fiction and chose to think he should be president, not because of any demonstrable competence, but because you feel he hurts the right people.

    FOX News victims are victims, but on the other hand, you own a remote control.

  122. The Encogitationer   3 years ago

    Nards and Goldie,

    It sucks to be anyone shared by the Feds, especially in the hands of the barely mentally functional and in the hands of politically-motivated law enforcers.

    But The Founders didn't need prompting from people like you and neither do any of us today. We'll "assume the powers of the Earth" and "alter or abolish" when we're damn good and ready!

    Whoever wants me has to come for me first. I'm not going out of the way to make it easy for them. And listening to anyone who talks about lining people against a wall and piling up corpses is the easiest way to get got.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I more than a little ways from bug-eating and enjoying a nice plate of fettuccini. Whoever trifles with that is really gonna get it!

  123. Nardz   3 years ago

    True.
    And people are suffering for the truth. But that's too often drowned out by the coordinated and random noise of the powers that be.
    They will be attempting to cut off the possibility of speaking truth soon. Well, even more so.

  124. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

    I think that many are vocal that this has definitely crossed several lines, and yesterday's actions are more likely to backfire on the current government. However, I think most people are more hoping and praying that we can reform the system starting with this November, but I also think this November is quite probably the last chance we'll have to avoid violence. Not that I think the revolt will occur on November 9th, but that people will resolve themselves to the necessity of it and prepare for it. I'm not sure if I would have said the same thing on Sunday, although, I was well down that road last week after Machin pussed the fuck out, because the improperly named Inflation Reduction Action is so fucking tone deaf and clearly not what people were asking for (and the likely outcomes are probably going to make things worse). I think many are like me, fucking passed the point of tolerance but praying and hoping for another alternative. Nardz says violence is the answer, but I'm wondering how he would feel in my shoes, with his oldest graduating basic training this Friday. He may truly believe that, and he may very well be correct, but he may understand why so many of us are so resistant to admitting that all our other alternatives have already failed and why we're willing to give it one more shot. And why veterans haven't been more vocal in stating violence is necessary, because we have personal stakes and experience with violence. It doesn't mean we've forsaken our oath or are complacent. It's that we really, really, really are hoping that we have one more chance to right the ship without resorting to our skill set.

    My biggest complaint about his attacks against veterans is he doesn't seem to understand it's reluctance born from experience and personal stakes (often that goes beyond our own personal risks as the military is made up of 60%+ second or more generation service members and that something like 80% of service members have one or more first degree relatives who served. For my generation of veterans, who most served in one capacity or another in service in Iraq or Afghanistan (even those of us stateside's missions were predominantly in support and almost all of us had a friend killed or wounded or came back fucked up in the head, from those actions), but it's also now our sons and daughters who are serving, our neices and nephews. Both my son and my nephew are serving in the Army. What he sees as complacency, I see as a forlorn hope. Which is something veterans understand well. A forlorn hope is a body of men formed as a sacrifice either as the spear of the point in an assault or as a tear guard in a retreat. Their chance of survival is extremely unlikely, but it's often the only alternative. And that's what November 8th represents, a forlorn hope.

  125. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

    Who is in denial? Just because we aren't forming up in the community greens yet, doesn't mean we're in denial.

  126. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

    Yesterday's raid was such a bad fucking move. It is extremely unlikely to ever be seen by the right as anything but an obvious abuse of power. I have to hope that it was more the result of the complete idiocy of the current administration rather than the malice that it appears to be. However, considering the calls to prosecute Trump, despite no illegal actions actually yet having enough evidence to get a conviction, and the endless prosecutorial investigations of obvious partisans, it's hard tobelieve anyone is so tone deaf as not to see how this will be perceived by anyone on the right or sympathetic to the right. And that's the worst part. It isn't the diehards but those of us on the fence that these actions have likely pushed us off the fence and not towards the administration (by on the fence, not that we are opened to the lefts views but that we haven't embraced Trump and his movement or calls of resistance beyond elections and petitions).

  127. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

    Also, I think there are several of us who react so strongly to Nardz because privately we suspect that he may actually be correct, or are leaning that way, but we also know the history of civil wars and revolutions (and our revolution was as much a civil way are as a revolt). They tend to bring out the worst in warfare (which isn't a picnic to begin with) from both sides and for every Washington history shows us that you end up with ten Cromwells, Robespierres, Napoleans, Francos.

  128. Nardz   3 years ago

    "What he sees as complacency, I see as a forlorn hope."

    No, that's how I see it too.
    Not complacency.
    Though what you call forlorn hope, I call desperate desire to not admit the reality of the problem.
    Main point is: these conversations should be going on, and should have been going on already.
    Instead of shouting down the black-pilled and making personal attacks, maybe try thinking clearly about the situation and discussing it on those terms (which you've done to an extent today).

  129. Nardz   3 years ago

    "Also, I think there are several of us who react so strongly to Nardz because privately we suspect that he may actually be correct, or are leaning that way, but we also know the history of civil wars and revolutions (and our revolution was as much a civil way are as a revolt). They tend to bring out the worst in warfare"

    Yes- it will be horrific beyond anything any of us have ever experienced, and has a low likelihood of success. IMO, the best course will to be decisive.

  130. Nardz   3 years ago

    "Who is in denial?"

    The people offended by what I'm saying.

  131. Sevo   3 years ago

    Nobody cares about your opinion you vile piece of garbage. Eat shit and die

  132. Libertarians are dickless losers   3 years ago

    +10 imaginary freedom inches

  133. Libertarians are dickless losers   3 years ago

    "any cost"

    You would have to put on pants and go outside.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

RFK Jr. Denigrates Privately Funded Medical Research

Joe Lancaster | 5.28.2025 3:55 PM

Can Trump Yank Harvard's Remaining Federal Funding?

Emma Camp | 5.28.2025 3:30 PM

A Federal Judge Lists 8 Ways That Trump Violated the Constitution by Punishing a Disfavored Law Firm

Jacob Sullum | 5.28.2025 3:15 PM

Elon Musk Is Right. The 'Big Beautiful Bill' Is a Bad Deal.

Eric Boehm | 5.28.2025 1:00 PM

Is Buying OnlyFans Content Now Illegal in Sweden?

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 5.28.2025 12:18 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!