After FBI's Mar-a-Lago Raid, Conservatives Finally Call for Police Reform
But it's hard to believe conservatives who wanted to lock up their political opponents and opposed police-accountability measures are acting out of principle rather than partisanship.

Shortly before the 2016 election, Mike Pence tweeted that "@realDonaldTrump and I commend the FBI for reopening an investigation into (Hillary) Clinton's personal server because no one is above the law." And who can forget the GOP crowds chanting "lock her up" in regard to Clinton—a sentiment Trump supported?
I had no problem with the email investigation provided a judge had authorized it and it conformed to legal standards. Truly, no one—not even a potential or actual president—should be above the law. However, the "lock her up" mantra, which pro-Trump crowds directed at other Democrats including Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, gave me the creeps.
In banana republics, the new despot tries to lock up the old strongman and rounds up his vanquished supporters. Even accounting for emotions that politicians drum up at rallies, that line was appalling. Americans should never cheer the idea of turning federal law enforcement—whatever its many current flaws and abuses—into a version of the Praetorian Guard.
Last week's big news is the FBI had executed a search warrant at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate, as it conducts an investigation into the alleged mishandling of classified documents. The former president and his minions have been all over the media describing the investigation as a political witch-hunt—a concept that, apparently, they no longer find to be entertaining.
"My beautiful home, Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, is currently under siege, raided, and occupied by a large group of FBI agents," the former president said in a statement. Some of his most-agitated supporters are openly calling for civil war. They are blasting the FBI's "tyranny." Suddenly, people who seemed eager to sic federal agents on their political opponents are aghast that the FBI would conduct an investigation of one of their own.
Some conservative rhetoric would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. One popular podcaster, Steven Crowder, warned liberals: "(Y)ou think they're not gonna come for you?" He didn't seem concerned about turning the U.S. into a third-world hellhole: "I don't care if we become Nicaragua at this point. You've already rung the bell, you can't un-ring it."
But the strangest response, from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.) was to "defund the FBI." The anti-Trump conservative website, The Bulwark, collected assorted tweets and statements from prominent Republican members of Congress and commentators who had savaged leftists for their "defund the police" rhetoric during anti-police-abuse protests—but who now are echoing Greene's ideas.
"Man Shot in Downtown Memphis Just Off Beale Street. This is What Happens When You Elect 'Defund the Police' Democrats," tweeted conservative columnist Todd Starnes in June. This week he had a somewhat different hot take: "The FBI has been weaponized. Defund and Dismantle."
Fox News' Dan Bognino called for widespread firings and accountability at the bureau: "I don't buy this rank and file crap either. Throw it right in the garbage. I don't buy it one bit. I was a Secret Service agent, and I was the rank-and-file. Me. And you know what? I saw something I didn't like, and I left." At this point, I should start cheering. Conservatives finally are echoing points that my fellow criminal-justice reformers have long made.
Police agencies absolutely need reform. Police unions protect bad actors. District attorneys rarely prosecute those officers even for egregious conduct. Fired cops simply get jobs at other agencies. The "thin blue line" mentality prods officers to follow orders rather than hold misbehaving colleagues accountable—as evidenced by the failure of Derek Chauvin's three colleagues to intervene during George Floyd's death.
Instead of walking away when their agencies carry out unconstitutional raids or abuse the power of asset forfeiture to confiscate property, police typically go along without complaint. But instead of proposing serious reforms, some progressives trotted out their "defund the police" mantra, which allowed conservatives to easily depict them as advocates for lawlessness.
It was one of the dumbest political mantras I've ever heard, but it was based very loosely on a sound idea. Why shouldn't Americans use the public purse strings to force police departments to improve their operations? When government agencies abuse our constitutional rights, they will do so even more zealously if we give them more money. Ditto for federal police agencies.
Now, suddenly, the Right seems to believe progressives were right—it only took the FBI to target their beloved ex-president to open their eyes. It remains to be seen whether the raid on Trump's estate is an abuse of power, but the FBI has a history of misusing authority. (So does the IRS, which is poised to receive a huge cash infusion.)
Frankly, it's hard to believe conservatives who wanted to lock up their political opponents and opposed police-accountability measures are acting out of principle rather than partisanship. Their opponents on the Left are no better, but perhaps this could be a teachable moment for everyone.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
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.
Please
to post comments
denial of Clinton criminality lol ... oooooh those nasty conservatives wanted an actual criminal to see justice
Great one..!!!
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. (res-52) This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
After reading this article:>>> https://exxtra-cassh3.blogspot.com/
Whataboutism - the last refuge of the defeated
Ignoring reality is the battle cry of the leftist retard.
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 realisable but my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best (alp--539) assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://shortest.link/3Rbg
This has been an exercise in DARVO.
Absolutely correct. The left has taken over the entire media. They ( cable tv stations) like cnn cnbc etc all have lied about Hunter Joe Biden Jim Biden and Hillary Clinton’s involvement in nefarious political smear campaigns leading to frame up jobs. The judge f Refuse to let evidence in the Hillary Clinton case that directly tied her to the origins of the Russia gate hawks naming her as the head co-conspirator do you want to talk about a twisted messed up system with the courts don’t even operate legally anymore???
"Whataboutism"
The Clintons are brought up in the opening paragraph of the fucking article, you retarded shill.
Hope your boss didn't give you fifty-cents for that.
You know, you have a very foul mouth for someone who's easily morally indignant and outraged.
And both Bill Clinton AND Trump were Epstein's buddies, and both raped his teenage sex slaves. Deal with it.
Equal justice under the law - good working definition of "whataboutism".
Hypocrisy and treason, hallmarks of the democrat party.
CRYING'Whataboutism' - the last refuge of the defeated
FTFY
“Reason” is such a joke.
????
We need a new libertarian news site. These dudes are not that.
I have to say. I'm surprised one hasn't come up.
I cannot say that I have ever before seen a site where the comments are so universally contrary to the authors and yet people come back so regularly for so long.
What exactly is libertarian about Trump and today's GOP?
" oooooh those nasty conservatives wanted an actual criminal to see justice"
as long as it is not dear leader trump...
Fuck off and die, asshole.
How about we investigate both Clinton and trump. Rich assholes should go to jail
The group running the Mar A Lago investigation have run past discredited Trump investigations.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/08/18/fbi_unit_leading_mar-a-lago_probe_previously_led_russiagate_hoax_848582.html
How about a story on the whole of government investigating a man for a crime? The very thing this magazine and libertarians have been against for decades?
From a nearby article on Reason today:
"New court documents show that the FBI planned for months to seize and forfeit property found inside safe deposit boxes in an L.A. raid under the pretext of doing an inventory".
Conservatives are not having double-standards on this issue. We can be against de-funding the police and letting the criminals do as they wish. We also believe the local citizens have oversight over their local police departments.
We can also be against the FBI doing as they wish, framing people, falsifying evidence, lying to the Courts and the people, and with no one having oversight over their actions, and with no repercussions. In both instances we are siding against the criminals.
And it should be remembered that for 6 years it's just been one investigation after another, practically every one of them has turned out to be based on transparently bad evidence, fabricated evidence, misrepresentations of evidence, and not one has turned up a shred of actual evidence of the crime being investigated. At this point it's obvious that the goal isn't justice, it's persecution. Hillary was actually found to be criminally liable in the case of the email server, the freaking FBI director stated so just before he said he wasn't going to prosecute. And the people at the top didn't even get investigated for the Steele Dossier fraud. It's transparently partisan. While I don't like one side much more than the other side, the lopsided nature of "justice" disgusts me.
The Clintons get a pass, the Bidens get a pass.....Hunter gets a pass,
Russian hoax? Nothing to see here, move along. The Bidens international bribery schemes......we know nothing. Hunter's laptop...go after the computer tech who discovered it.
I had no problem with the email investigation provided a judge had authorized it and it conformed to legal standards.
The standard if identifying a crime first, and then investigatinf?
However, the "lock her up" mantra, which pro-Trump crowds directed at other Democrats including Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, gave me the creeps.
7 years of lock him up. Dozens of investigations and impeachment. IC and open resistance over claims of him being a criminal. DAs running campaigns to lock him up. J6 committee. Do any of those things give you the creeps?
Of course they don’t.
You can always count on Greenhut to give the shiniest of takes. Has he ever advocated a libertarian policy or position?
Some conservative rhetoric would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. One popular podcaster, Steven Crowder, warned liberals: "(Y)ou think they're not gonna come for you?" He didn't seem concerned about turning the U.S. into a third-world hellhole: "I don't care if we become Nicaragua at this point. You've already rung the bell, you can't un-ring it."
Rhetoric vs actual actions. The rhetoric is what bothers you? Then about Hayden calling for the execution of Trump if nuclear secrets are found? What about the left saying the GOP is more dangerous than al queda or ISIS?
This is a dead giveaway that he is using a talking points memo from the top.
Crowder did not exist until 2 days ago. Then he tweets "sleep well, tomorrow is war!" And some marketing guy down at DNC headquarters thinks it makes good copy, and everyone uses it the next day. It was on NBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NPR, waPo, NYT, ... They all quoted this podcaster that they ignored until that moment.
And now.... Reason Magazine is holding him up as the example of conservative rhetoric.
Except he doesn't listen to the comedian/podcaster. So he doesn't know the context, just the talking points quotes he has been given.
And interestingly, the memo got to Alphabet, who removed him from YouTube on the same day. In this case. It was for the crime of interviewing the Republican candidate for Arizona Governor.
But that level of overt political censorship by one of the largest companies on earth, one closely aligned with the DNC (see "The Groundwork") is of no interest to the nation's flagship libertarian magazine?
No.... The flagship publication for liberty and freedom is more interested in interpreting skepticism of the FBI's motives as an 11th hour conversion for purely partisan purposes and dismissing it out of hand, while attempting to villify anyone expressing such skepticism by presenting rhetorical flourishes about the obvious comparisons to tinpot dictators as somehow being dangerous calls to violence.
This is definitely a bridge too far.
You guys cannot pretend to be a libertarian publication and play this "they are dangerous" card about a comedian who does right-libertarian commentary.
But the
Remember where libertarians were on the police when Dunphy was a regular contributor here at HnR? Back in the days when Reason covered actual police and prosecutorial abuse? When names like Jose Guerreno, Steven Haynes, Michael West, Harry Connick, etc. were common tip of the tongue names around here, and profane references to police were common.
Back when police abuse was an actual beat reporters here covered, and the morning links usually included what we called the "daily nutpunch".
But not any more. Trump broke the left-libertarians. So when Sally Yates documented a criminal conspiracy to frame a Trump advisor for a crime he did not comit in her CYA email, nobody at reason called for criminal investigations. In fact, suddenly suspicion of federal police power was uninteresting. This. Despite the fact that we had the actual reciepts this time. No need to read into it, she transcribed the FBI agents asking for clarity... Were they to set him up to get fired, or for prosecution of a crime?
Since those events, reason has been unable to find the voice to criticize federal abuse of power.
It has made for a very muddled reasoning on these hallowed pages, where one minute police are evil and the next they are above reproach... Often in the same set of actions... All while we wait to find out what the partisan spin is.
Is shooting someone who is attacking a black woman with a knife laudible police work? Or is it racism that must be prosecuted? In 2014 that was easy for a libertarian minded reform advocate to suss out. But not in 2020 and beyond.
You guys have completely blown your credibility.... And now you want to hop on a high-horse and hector conservatives into silence on issues of abuse of police power by the state?
Dude!
We spent decades trying to convince libertarian adjacent conservatives that they could make common cause with us on police reform without throwing out law and order.
And now your position is "how dare you guys complain when a conservative gets stepped on by the hobnailed boot! That's dangerous!"
Framing people for crimes isn't dangerous. Spying on political rivals isn't dangerous. Using all levels of state power to target individuals for years absent any indication of actual crimes committed isn't dangerous.
Paying for political violence isn't dangerous. Ordering that political violence not be prosecuted or even policed is not dangerous. Organizing protests outside the private residences of supreme court justices isn't dangerous. Refusing to provide adequate security at capital hill isn't dangerous, even when capital police and the white house both call for and offer additional personnel isn't dangerous. Calling a Muslim extremist who shoots up a nightclub because of his Muslim extremism a "homophobic white supremacist Trump supporter" isn't dangerous. Faking hate crimes and blaming them on political rivals isn't dangerous....
Nope!
Complaining about the abuse of state power to target political opponents... That is what is dangerous!!!!
Holy crap, you guys are unhinged.
Nice. This is what I come to Reason for! Thanks to all the commenters who have retained their ability to think things through to this level.
Fuckin’ A. I remember those days.
""Remember where libertarians were on the police when Dunphy was a regular contributor here at HnR? Back in the days when Reason covered actual police and prosecutorial abuse?""
The old Balko nut punch.
Drug-war supporter Crowder is a libertarian?
"What about the left saying the GOP is more dangerous than al queda or ISIS?"
As always, it's confession via projection.
They know what they are, and what they intend.
Now, suddenly, the Right seems to believe progressives were right—it only took the FBI to target their beloved ex-president to open their eyes. It remains to be seen whether the raid on Trump's estate is an abuse of power, but the FBI has a history of misusing authority.
The right has been saying this since 2015. See trump russia hoax. And the left is actually acting, not just using rhetoric.
Progressives at no point in history have been opposed to police. Indeed, progressivism requires extensive and harsh policing to be implemented.
Progressives are opposed to local police officers that have ties to their community. The goal is a centralized, federal, all powerful State enforcers who are clearly separated from their targets and will act against without any restraint.
Progressives are totalitarian liars.
Activism against small town cops isn't any attempt to increase liberty, it's in furtherance of totalitarianism and rulers vs subjects.
The funny thing is Greenhut's got his perception of reality wrong. She was under investigation and asked to turn over government documents as part of the hearing. When they had documentation of thousands of emails on the recipients' end that she didn't turn over, they went to look for the rest, which she deleted. There was no question about why the emails were being requested. Acting like she just took the emails home with her when she left is a blatant retcon and that's if you ignore the fact that she can't declassify documents singularly and, even if she could, can't destroy them unilaterally.
The findings of the hearing were literally, "She committed a crime that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute." not "She committed no crime."
I've never considered "the police" and the FBI to be the same thing, or even doing the same job.
Agreed. Federal vs state has always been a discussion point.
Supporting law enforcement at a local level while demanding the federal authority be neutered is an awfully libertarian stance for a publication like Reason to take.
You think the local PD has the same reach and capabilities as the FBI? Not to mention transparency and accountability to their constituents.
Reason spends more energy on local speed trap towns than the unaccountable Praetorian Guard that actually has overturned our democracy
Unless they think the story is TOO local.
It's not Reason magazine if they aren't conflating things disingenuously.
'Conservatives' suddenly want 'police' reform, read the article, they're talking about the Federal agencies not the actual local or even state police that most actual conservatives support.
Meanwhile, those same conservatives have been critical of federal enforcement agencies for nearly a decade if not longer.
Conservatives and libertarians were the only ones ever talking about Waco or Ruby Ridge or half a dozen other cases.
Hit submit too soon. Meant to say “but except for all of that, conservatives have never cared about police reform at a federal level.”
😉
lets try this again...
Because the Constitution doesn't allow for a Federal police force.
I think it does, but for federal crimes like counterfeiting. I agree that our FBI is way overpowered concerning crimes that are not actually federal in nature because they don't concern the constitutionally enumerated duties of the federal government. There is certainly no constitutionally enumerated power over kidnapping or transportation of stolen goods across state lines. And while the government certainly has constitutional authority when it comes to import/export at the national borders it has no such authority over state borders. The ICA, probably the most misused act in our history, allows the federal government to prevent states from prohibiting commerce but has become a catchall for anything that might even potentially cross state borders.
Counterfeiting is handled by the secret service I believe, not the FBI.
How nice that we have the internet where we can all get together and decide precisely how our ridiculous opinion can be fudged into something resembling logic.
A statement from the paragon of ridiculous opinion.
I was hoping someone was going to point out the conflation of federal and local police this article has to engage in to push it's collectivist narrative.
Conservative have often called for police reform. They acknowledge that reform is not the same as elimination like the dems
Didn't the Republicans pass a criminal justice reform bill years ago?
First Step Act. Signed by Trump. So it doesn't count.
Of course not! He was probably tricked into it, or the Kardashian let him grab her right in the pussy. Obviously he couldn't do a good thing on his own.
Damn, hope he got a penicillin shot if he did that.
The right finally agreeing with progressives? Beyond stupid for 1,000 reasons e.g.
'...Subsequently, Mills and Samuelson finally gave the computers over to the FBI, which per their agreements, limited the FBI’s investigation. The FBI agreed to limit a) the method by which the emails investigated would be obtained; b) the scope of files which would be investigated, and c) the time frame parameters for investigated emails. In other words, the FBI agreed in the immunity contracts not to do a full investigation on the Clinton emails. To make matters worse, again, per the immunity agreements, the FBI agreed to destroy the computers that had the back-up emails...'
Holy crap! You guys.... How deluded do you have to be?
The principled position on government corruption was "don't set up a private email server to avoid the open records act and then when under a subpoena destroy those records". Ancillary was "don't tell your subordinates to cut off the classified designation and email you a copy of classified documents". But that was secondary to evading legal subpoenas of public records.
The motivations of many may have been "because I want to get a political rival", but the fact was that there was a specific crime stated, and it did not arise from a general search for unspecified crimes to be named later, it arose from a search for the truth about a specific congressional oversight function.
Contrast with the current situation, where there is no crime specified at the outset, no legitimate oversight function. Instead, we have an openly partisan attempt to find a crime to charge a political rival.
And not just by Garland... But at least 2 NY attorneys general ran for office on a promise to use their power to "get Trump" for unspecified crimes to be determined later.
And on the partisanship angle... Where were you on the notion that merely asking about allegations of corrupt actions by a member of the opposing party who was not even a candidate for office at the time constituted a high crime, worthy of removal from office?
Not even using the organs of state, just asking about highly credible allegations of corruption against former VP Biden was grounds for impeachment.
But using the FBI and DOJ to go on a years long fishing expedition to find evidence of some unspecified crime, however technical..... That is just fine and only an 11th hour partisan conversion could make one question it?
+10x3 up the thread.
Or, they were after purposely unspecified evidence against pedocrats. Could be a cover-up and a fishing expedition. Look at the magistrate who signed the warrant. He let Epstein plead to soliciting a minor, then quit the public sector to represent the Clintons, Epstein himself, and his other clients. Then he's awarded a magistrate appointment in South Florida (high concentration of his Epstein clients) for his usefulness. He had also recused himself in June regarding Trump for bias. Old sniffy in chief obviously called in a favor due.
I have to agree with you Cyto. It's amazing how far they'll go to reform what Hillary Clinton was doing in the name of going after Trump. FOIA be damned, I guess.
The fact is, they can both be wrong. It's not a binary choice. With that being said, it's also hard to ignore that they went after Clinton because of a specific crime whereas we seem to never find out what they're going after Trump for until well after the fact.
I'm not saying Trump is innocent this time, but it's also hard to ignore that they've been wrong literally every time up till now and their tactics have been super questionable. That feels like politically motivated witch hunting versus simple investigations, especially when they end up finding nothing or being totally discredited by the end of each investigation.
I can dislike Trump and still defend him against that type of nonsense. If I don't, then I'll have no room to complain when I'm the one up against the wall.
That used to be bog-standard libertarian.
"I despise what you are saying, but I will defend your right to say it."
We have moved on to "shut up... nobody is stopping you from expressing your ideas. Just don't do it in public"
Liberty minded comments like this are why I still post here.
Innocent within normal parameters
Yeah, there's never been a conservative who called for police reform prior to Trump being raided. They only care when it's a prominent political figure on their side. Did conservatives think there should be reform after they watched George Floyd's death? Of course not! Did conservatives have any issues with no-knock raids that killed Dennis Tuttle or Breonna Taylor? Not a one! There's never been a conservative who complained, never! It's never happened!
Has any D politicos been raided and prosecuted? Hillary, Paige Strozk, McCabe?
They really threw the book at Clinesmith for fraudulent FISA warrants didn't they?
They raided Roger Stone, at least. I mean, not helpful, but...oh wait, they raided Paul Manafort too!
They even had CNN in tow during the Roger Stone raid. That always seemed highly suspect to me.
So you actually sympathize with a creep like Roger Stone? He got a taste of his own medicine, too bad.
Sarcasm?
This is Steven Greenhut for you. If any issue would lead him to agree with icky deplorables, it makes him sick. And so all he can do is get angry at conservatives for daring to agree with him on an issue.
In order to be leftist, one has to have sanctimony, usually paired with smarmy elitist presumption if moral superiority, with no foundation in reality...as character flaws.
Although I'm inwardly conservative morally, I'd consider myself (classically) progressive, outwardly...live and let live. I hold myself to a higher standard and seek change inwardly, not force it on others or make them pay for my ideas/idealism. That's why I think I fit into and am attracted to libertarianism.
This author and his drivel have no place in a "libertarian" forum.
So I take it that means you were also against CPAC inviting an open authoritarian like Viktor Orban to speak there, since you're such a true libertarian and not in the least bit hypocritical.
Lol! Perfect representation of current partisan thinking in America.
Trump passed the First Steps act, that was police reform. As far as George Floyd he killed himself eating drugs in an attempt to hide them. While I don't agree with the Illinois laws that made the drugs illegal someone with a history of heart disease shouldn't be eating large amounts of drugs for obvious reasons. He was passing counterfeit money and hiding evidence and as far as I'm concerned the police didn't cause his death, that was simply partisan politics. The entire BLM movement was a criminal action supported wholly by partisan actors, billions in damages, scores of people killed and injured, commercial enterprises in poor black neighborhoods destroyed by people supposedly standing up for black people and all of this called "mostly peaceful protest" and completely justified by the D's almost unanimously?
But it's hard to believe conservatives who wanted to lock up their political opponents and opposed police-accountability measures are acting out of principle rather than partisanship.
One group tweeted about locking up their opponents, the other is actually doing it.
believe conservatives who wanted to lock up their political opponents
Shorter: But enough about Liz Cheney.
In a progressives mind, that is TOTALLY the same thing. The same was ENB & Reason Editors compare parents/schools removing age inappropriate books from school libraries to the act of actually burning books.
I like how you Orban-loving statist ersatz libertarians think Reason's recent articles condemning the banning of "age inappropriate" books is kowtowing to a woke agenda when Reason has been condemning banning/censoring books throughout its entire existence.
Greenhut, pushing that narrative. Gotta get that envelope of money from Papa Koch. Libertarian position, meh. Integrity, meh. Dollar bills, yep.
It's such a ridiculous fucking narrative, too.
This shit happens when someone of a political bent wants to frame the argument their way. Just because conservatives think BLM and defund the police and all of that are complete nonsense doesn't mean that they agree with issues of militarization, no knock warrants, police training, etc.
It is like saying hunters aren't naturalists or don't care about the environment because they don't agree with Greenpeace.
This is just disingenuous bullshit.
Hell, want to blow minds?
The timber industry does more for tree preservation than any environmental group in history has ever approached.
The juxtaposition between the Trump raid articles and the Boehm safe deposit box raid article is particularly amusing.
Because Trump wanting the military to seize ballot boxes is a libertarian position, right?
It's mainly FBI reform Steve. Although some state and local police may need reform witch hunt/SS stuff is all FBI.
Ha ha were you trying to make a "both sides" point? Fail!
When the Republicans do something sketchy the Reasonistas bravely call them out. However, when the Democrats do something evil and fascist Reason judiciously notes "both sides".
Not true. What reason does is explain that Republicans reacting to actual abuses by Democrats by using speech is what is dangerous.
Democrats calling for state action to force more censorship by media companies? Not worth mentioning. Besides, private companies can do what they want.
Republicans calling for media companies to stop censoring Republicans? That is fascism. Literally worse than Hitler.
They only rarely "both sides" an argument. Normally they are in "Republicans Pounce" mode.
"Democrats calling for state action to force more censorship by media companies? Not worth mentioning. Besides, private companies can do what they want."
Hell, Alex Berenson has proof that the government had Twitter ban his account.
Because Reason has never called out and criticized for Democrats for anything, right?
You're just butthurt because Greenhut wrote something less-than-positive about Republicans.
"I'll just set this bullshit down here and hope nobody notices...
But it's hard to believe conservatives who wanted to lock up their political opponents and opposed police-accountability measures are acting out of principle rather than partisanship."
Wasn't it Virginia where Dems owned the state legislature recently and shutdown a police reform bill? But, Republicans pounce or something.
Greenhut knows that they they may have been Democrats on the outside, they were Republicans at heart.
*though they
you guyz... this entire article especially the subhead - is a gigantic troll. They need your offended clicks - as do i... because your responses and the back and forth with the few honest lefties here - is what i come for.
Wow! I've wanted to see FBI reform since Ruby Ridge and Waco. They are an out of control agency.
Yeah, although in both of those cases it was the ATF that really showed how fucking morally bankrupt a Federal agency can be.
That was Before Twitter. Ancient of History. This is totes new position for Conservatards!
Yeah, that was the correct example.
Those two have been the center of right wing anti government sentiment for decades. They were such an obvious debunk of this article, I can't believe it wasn't my first thought.
Pretty sure 'conservatives' were looking for police reform for years now at the federal level, at least, and since we're still talking about federal cops this seems disingenuous.
Local cops seem to be the one's the actual conservative voters respect, whereas I don't know more than a small handful of self proclaimed conservatives that think federal agencies are respectable in any form or fashion. Self selected group and all, so take it with a grain of salt, but most of them soured on federal enforcers during BLM riots.
Many of us have been sour on the feds since at least 1992.
And complaining about Ruby Ridge or Waco made you, in the eyes of the Left, a likely white supremacist or conspiracy nut.
Because shooting a woman in the head while holding her child is not anything one should sweat over too much.
That isn't as dangerous as conservative rhetoric.
In an essay I was in the middle of writing, and defining different types of libertarian - I stopped at 7 - I had this:
The Federal libertarian: he is a genuine libertarian – with respect to the Federal government. He wants a small Federal government, cuts in defence, reduced international entanglements and Federal drug legalisation. But when it comes to the states, why then the case is altered. He’s fine with states imposing drug restrictions and banning abortions. And he will defer to state and local police, particularly when it comes to “those people”. Basically, he regards the Feds as “them” and state governments as “us”.
I can destroy your essay with one simple fact.
There is no true libertarian.
LOL nice one! Now I can add an eighth: the Scottish libertarian - who thinks that anyone who doesn't follow his self-defined brand of libertarianism is no true libertarian.
You've just typed your own brand, Mr. "This is a Genuine Libertarian."
There are a number of variations of genuine libertarian - axiomatic/dogmatic, principled, Brin-ian, etc. Plus one can distinguish between economic and socio-political principles and it's perfectly possible to be authoritarian wrt socio-political yet libertarian wrt economic. Indeed, HK at one point was pretty close to that. Rather than deny that the person is a libertarian, it's just easier to describe them as a hybrid.
Fair enough, though functionally we're all hybrids - that you understand this makes the above description of the Federal libertarian come across very off-key.
Aside: what is Brinian? I've not come across that before; is it using Sergey Brin as a shorthand for Silicon Valley's politics as a whole?
It's a different Brin - the fine SF author David Brin, who leans to a pragmatic libertarianism.
SRG isn’t a libertarian.
I'm not a dogmatic libertarian. I am socially libertarian and somewhat libertarian economically, but am generally pragmatic about it. But dogmatic libertarians, and some righr-wingers who think they're libertarians don't get it.
I haven’t seen one post from you that put liberty first.
You’re about as liberty minded as Tony.
The obsessive, collectivist need to define groups might have been a giveaway that individualism is hard to grasp for him. Wait till he figures out that by including the "8th" definition he has opened himself to every individual definition. It will be awhile in his life before he gets it, but at least he's here and onto the right stuff.
No. They realize that uniform rules are bad. That people can move freely between states. And it is possible to change state regulations more so than federal.
The problem with idealism is it always leads to authoritarianism. Even idealistic libertarianism leads to it.
If a group of people want to form a restrictive culture in their group they should be free to do so. Federalism allows for that.
But then again shrike, you've always been pro one rule to rule them all form of government.
Some people really seem to crave a libertarianism that's little more than a set of instructions.
Fuck off, peasant. I'm not shrike, much as, apparently, you wish I were.
Sure shrike.
Okay Shrike.
The problem with idealism is it always leads to authoritarianism. Even idealistic libertarianism leads to it.
Coming across this again, I think you're very probably right. The ideological temptation is temporarily to compel compliance - and it never seems to be temporary.
When I first read Oakeshott's "Rationalism in Politics", recommended to me as an interesting read by a college chum and later business partner, who was a staunch Thatcherite (and is now a Tory peer), i resisted his argument vigorously but as time passed, I realised that ideological approaches really had major problems of unforeseen consequences - and a move to authoritarianism was definitely one - whereas these tended to be avoided when a pragmatic, even conservative, approach was adopted to societal, political or economic change.
And as that applied to libertarianism - which had appealed to a degree ever since I read Mill's Essay on Liberty at the right age (15) - it meant that doctrinaire libertarianism was not the way to go (which meant that I thought that much of Ayn Rand's writing was shite, even ignoring her style.)
"particularly when it comes to “those people”"
In your mind, who are "those people?" The feds?
The Browns. Anyone with conservative leanings hates non-whites. It is known.
I don't want my political opponents in prison. I want people who abuse their power in prison. I want people guilty of treason in prison. I want people guilty of voter fraud in prison. I want people who facilitated the sale of government secrets by Hillary Clinton in a pay for access scheme put in prison.
What conservatives have ever wanted to lock up political opponents (unless they committed crimes)? None. None of the "police abuses" such as George Floyd were anything other than manufactured rabble-rousing operations, designed to destroy local law enforcement. The FBI on the other hand, has been murdering citizens for almost as long as it has existed. Murdering gangsters willy-nilly in the '30s was popular because they were probably guilty of something, murdering women and children (Randy Weaver's wife and son, Branch Davidians, etc.) is where ignoring federal abuse got us.
I want to congratulate Reasoners for finding a way to blame Republicans for what Democrats are doing, even though it was proven from her own statements Clinton broke national security laws. This is the kind of Dem party protection work we've come to expect from Reason.
quit triggering me!! so many flashbacks!
"In banana republics, the new despot tries to lock up the old strongman and rounds up his vanquished supporters."
But enough about Biden's DOJ, the J6 prosecutions, NY prosecutors and Reason heroine Liz Cheny.
Jumped the fucking shark this week in regards to covering for the FBI and Garland while blaming Republicans for crying foul.
Nothing more libertarian than victim blaming while covering for authoritarianism.
As if you and your ilk haven't recently been praising blatant authoritarians like Viktor Orban (who is also pro-China, by the way).
The only fake libertarian here is you.
had no problem with the email investigation provided a judge had authorized it and it conformed to legal standards. Truly, no one—not even a potential or actual president—should be above the law. However, the "lock her up" mantra, which pro-Trump crowds directed at other Democrats including Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, gave me the creeps.
God… more telltale examples that Reason.com is just going for the cocktail parties. Jesus Christ, STEVE, didn’t you know that Hitlery Kkklinton had Alzheimer’s snd Parkinson’s six years back and found out she could cure it by sucking the blood from babies? If not, you need to stop hanging out with the DNC shills you guys normally suck blood with snd get out there at the NASCAR, where GOP operatives came up with the wittiest slogan since “MA, MA, Where’s my Pa?” I refer, of course, to the devastating rejoinder, “Let’s Go Brandon” {Shakes head}. Devastating.
Well at least Shrike's less racist in this post than he usually is with this sock.
QTard alert.
Over on CNN: first the Republicans attacked the FBI, now they're coming for the IRS. How soon before Reason is taking this stance? Memory holing the decades of criticism the conservatives have directed at both agencies?
The administration message in the IRS is farcical... And chilling.
They are hiring 80,000 new agents. And the white house claims that they will only be used to investigate people who make more than $400,000 per year.
That is one new agent for every 35 people earning that much (based on household income of 400k, even though the white house uses individuals)
Since they claim they only are going after over 400k earners, they will not be retaking current agents to stop going after the rich and targeting the poor.
So less than 35 returns per agent. Probably less than 25 returns per agent, if they are not lying about that.
So each "target the rich" agent gets 2 returns per month? They can spend 80 hours per taxpayer looking for something, anything to disagree with and raise more cash?
And we are not supposed to concern ourselves about that?
The administration did add qualifiers. They are not going after those only making $400K. The IRS will still audit those making less than $400K at a similar rate. Those new agents will make the auditing process far more efficient. And so those making less the $400K will have their audits completed more quickly so they can still audit those making less $400K at the same rate. The IRS will pay for itself in not new audits of the middle class. You'll see. Nothing will change.
What a clown show.
Same rate of what, same rate per number of audits or of population? Because those are two very different things and I'm pretty fucking sure it wasn't specified.
Other issue is...WHERE are the qualified agents going to come from?
There is absolutely not a glut of CPA's out on the market.
The real trick they are pulling here is the conflation of conservative with Republican. As if the private party never steps out of line with the majority of the voters will that actually think conservatively.
Then again, if you wish to conserve the founding principles of America you should be voting libertarian. Then that whole conflation comes up in people's heads again, and they think that Republicans are conservatives.
It pays to be sceptical about law enforcement at all levels, from local cops to county sheriffs to state police to the FBI. While I do not 100% endorse GF Newman's comment that there's something psychologically wrong with anyone who wants to police other people, he is not entirely wrong either.
But it is also correct to be sceptical about pleas of innocence and claims of persecution when you can pretty much see the evidence of guilt with your own eyes (unless you choose selectively to keep your eyes shut).
(And the term "witch hunt" has rhetorical force only when we know that there are no witches. Had the FBI turned up in full-on FBI uniforms and large numbers of American-made black SUV POSs, barged into Maga-Lago and entered a locked room to find nothing but, say, printed menus for some recent banquet, then "witch hunt" would be more appropriate.)
I wish Greenhut and Sullum had been skeptical about claims of peaceful protesters being kidnapped by federal agents and put into unmarked cars.
That was before January 6.
That isn't the witch hunt.
The witch is Trump. He is an ass,but he is astonishingly free of witchcraft.
I mean, he must be the cleanest New York real estate developer in history. They have spent years and at least a hundred million dollars trying to pin ANY crime at all on him.
And they have bupkus.
They say "show me the man and I will show you the crime".... yet hundreds of investigators and prosecutors dedicated to the task have failed.
That is astonishing.
I personally find it hard to believe he never greased some palms in Atlantic City or NYC, but I’m not aware of them finding any such thing.
To be fair, he was able to find a decent lawyer in those days.
Not so much anymore. What is the ad hoc conspiracy theory you have to explain that?
I mean you're saying the shooting of an unarmed woman is fine and dandy in the other thread shrike.
Fuck off, peasant.
And context matters. If Ashli Babbitt had wandered into the Capitol by herself, unarmed, and was shot almost immediately, that would be shocking - and murder. She didn't and it wasn't. But I guess each generation of far-righties need their martyrs - Horst Wessel, for example.
Maybe if she had taken a fatal dose of fentanyl first, or went in “unarmed” with a large knife
Well, we know that the defence "I was in fear for my life" is almost universally accepted by right-wingers when the police shoot an unarmed citizen.
What you know seems lacking in this area.
And in many others.
"If Ashli Babbitt had wandered into the Capitol by herself, unarmed, and was shot almost immediately, that would be shocking - and murder."
Another "murder is suitable penalty for trespass" libertarian?
Yeah, this is the lying pile of lefty shit who rates FDR as superior to Trump regarding regulations and personal freedom.
What about how libertarians are reacting? Maybe mention that we've been screaming about this for decades? Or does Reason not give a shit about libertarians? (Rhetorical)
We need more Balko.
The absence of that type of reporting is a glaring hole in Reason.
This whole crew needs to be flushed. Keep Stossel and start over fresh
Or accept this site's limitations and follow libertarian investigative journalists like Balko wherever he writes.
Balko isn't exactly pro-Trump, either. And he definitely isn't pro-DeSantis.
Shouldn't you be calling him an evil closest commie for that instead?
Remember, the Russiagate Hoax was literally a hoax- entirely and knowingly fabricated by the US intel apparatus, numerous foreign agents and officials, and a sitting Democrat administration and the campaign of the prospective succeeding Democrat administration.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/report-fbi-raid-targeted-docs-trump-collected-exonerate-himself-russiagate-hoax
Hey, Schumer warned Trump that US intel could screw him 6 ways to Sunday.
He just didnt mention that it would take 5-7 years and a couple hundred million dollars.
https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1560694006039863297?t=vHnQQvXxMRPDCzUZ-l8iNg&s=19
And now the Left media is worried that @JudicialWatch will use the secret affidavit as a "weapon"!
[Link]
Now do every other government agency-- federal, state & local.
I don't particularly care about Republican (or Democrat) hypocrisy on this point. Defund the FBI is a good idea. In fact, I don't think you can call yourself a libertarian if you don't support it. (And you should have supported it before 9/11, much less the Trump presidency).
Yeah... Cause remember that day Trump was high out of his mind, passed out fake $20 bills and refused to be arrested?? Or how about that day Trump tried to grab a police officers gun from him after stealing at a convenience store?? Or how about that day Trump entirely ignored attacked plea's from Benghazi mission troops?? Or how about that day he setup an insecure world-wide -web accessible to pass around national security correspondence??
Yeah; It's so hypocritical to call for police reform when the FBI is "looking" for any informants who could make any case against Trump..... /s
Your hypocritical meter runs about 99%(D-side) to 1%(R-side) and is much better described as PROJECTION!!!! One of leftards most powerful character traits.
The "Defund the police" movement is based on the silly notion that blacks only get arrested and go to jail due to racism, Since criminal laws and the police enforcing them are all racist, getting rid of the police means no more black people go to jail. I'm not sure how that works but something is supposed to happen and then utopia exists.
The FBI, on the other hand, is being used to target Trump for political reasons. They literally tried to frame him before, and now they're going after him for overdue library books.
On the other hand, James Comey held a press conference wherein he explained how Hillary had committed crimes related to mishandling of classified info but it didn't count because she didn't mean to and no reasonable prosecutor would prosecutor her. That investigation was conducted by her political allies and they treated her with kid gloves and let her get away with a lot, including letting her chief of staff Cheryl Mills (a potential target and witness) represent her during her meeting with them, and claim privilege. Loretta Lynch refused to actually recuse herself even after she got busted on the tarmac will BJ Clinton.
Now, we're being told that no one is above the law. It's complete horseshit.
Keep the portion of the FBI that goes after the mob and get rid of the part that ignores school shooters and goes after Republicans for political reasons.
And then Comey went on to purposefully leak Classified info to a press buddy to politically harm Trump
And Democrats are backing the FBI. How convenient that Political parties support what benefits them. How earth shattering. How about writing an article telling us the that sky is blue
In as far as their political opponents were actual criminals, that is undeniably true: Hillary, Biden, and probably Obama should be prosecuted, convicted, and locked up for their crimes. We call that "the rule of law".
What a delusional author! So defund the police was a "sound idea"? That's not what many Democratic cities who actually did defund the police are saying now. In fact, they're double-timing it to refund the police because violent crime rates have spiked. And don't be so naive to think that the defund campaign was only to force police to behave better. Rather, it was just what it stated: to defund every police department, without any investigation into whether or not it was misbehaving. It was to demoralize and diminish the role of police, not to improve their departments. And if this author believes that defunding police and defunding the FBI are the same thing, I have a few bridges in Brooklyn he might want to buy.
I have nothing useful to add here, except to say that Greenhut is dumber than his turkey and avocado sandwich.
The phrase efundday ethay olicepay is not something Democrats ever say anymore. They think it cost them much support of relatively sane people. It's a slogan from the college youth, who in another generation would be smoking bongs and talking about these things in private instead of on the internet for all the world to see. We can't be held responsible for the politics of teenagers.
Those kids hate the FBI too, by the way. I'm not sure exactly what the complaint is, but if you ask me, institutions don't do bad things. People do bad things. Do we need federal law enforcement or not? Do we want federal crimes? That seems to be the question, and I say sure, it's better than leaving it up to fucking local cops.
"Give all the power to local cops and we'll have freedom," or "states' rights." About as pro-freedom an attitude as the first time it was thrown around.
Reason is lying again. They should read libertariannews.org, which my the way they were kicked off of for being communist. Conservatives have been calling for police reform for ages.
A few headlines, with nothing to do about Trump:
The Three I’s of a Police State Education: Indoctrination, Intimidation & Intolerance
More Than a Half-dozen Officers Stood and Watched for 8 Minutes as a Teen Hung Himself
“Beyond Chilling” — Homeland Security Seeks to Share Biometric Databanks With Foreign Countries
Cop Formerly Charged Over Murder of Freddie Gray Now in Charge of Investigating The Same Department
USA Has 3rd Highest Murder Rate in the World
I have been reading this site for 10 years and these stories appear every day. Supporting the police does not mean supporting bad police.
This is why the "Libertarian" movement is dead. Half y'all on this website rationalize the overreach by the FBI because you hate Trump and without seeing the wider implications, while the other half say conservatives need to support police reform as libertarians hide and remain silent on the FBI's overreach. The "Libertarians" on this website are nothing more than leftists and closet communists. Y'all hid during the entire pandemic and still hide. Cowards.
I have read this authors other articles and most are good. Sadly this one shows he is suffering from TDD. His Uvalde article shows he lacks a good understanding of law enforcement. Perhaps living in the Sac CA the center of Dem Dysfunction is taking its toll on his ability to Reason. I hope he gets better,
When did Reason become a closet communist website?! I guess that's why Libertarian candidates get the bulk of their money from leftist groups and Super PACs.
The author of this article has confused local law enforcement with a federal version that are nothing more than thugs with badges. Brutal murderers, assassins and self serving government worker bees with the attitude they cannot be held accountable for anything they do. They answer to noone. Not even congress. I suspect those in congress are fearful if they raise any real questions concerning the FBI's activities, they will be the target of the next FBI raid at 5:00 AM with two SWAT teams, armored vehicle, heli and CNN in tow.
There is a vast difference between local police and Sheriffs depts. and the FBI. Local police are and have been held accountable for their actions or lack of actions.
The FBI is untouchable
and anyone who dares raise questions gets a visit.
We shouldn’t defund the police or FBI, we should “constitutionalize” the top management of police and FBI. We could minimize “mission-creep” by relocating existing tax dollars from failed programs to one’s with better success.
Most law enforcement officers are brave, patriotic and protect people they don’t even know. These subordinates take orders from above - constitutional or illegal orders.
The problem is “top management” giving orders that are illegal and/or unconstitutional to their subordinates.
It’s called “Unconstitutional Authoritarianism” - where top managements exceeds their legal and constitutional authority.
Conservative justices on the 1960’s/1970’s U.S. Supreme Court essentially amended the “spirit” (or meaning) of the 4th Amendment’s very clear wording with rulings like “Terry v. Ohio”. The George W. Bush Administration then used this false legal foundation to build it’s “Bush Preemption Doctrine”. For example: warrantless “Stop & Frisk” searches which violate the 4th Amendment and every officials Oath of Office loyalty oath.
“Unconstitutional-Authoritarianism” is essentially what “Jim Crow” laws and practices are. The governing official perceives themselves as above the U.S. Constitution and above their own Oath of Office. On the local level, some officials during the Jim Crow era cited the 10th Amendment (states’ rights) but ignored the 9th Amendment - which means states rights can’t be interpreted to violate other constitutional rights. Today’s some Trump supporters seem to subscribe to this same cherry-picking out of context.
When local officials won’t honor their constitutional Oath of Office, the federal government does indeed have the authority to “check & balance” those disloyal officials. Likewise if a federal official, like Trump, is disloyal to his Oath of Office, state officials like Georgia, have the authority to check & balance that unconstitutional authority.
"Most law enforcement officers are brave, patriotic and protect people they don’t even know. These subordinates take orders from above - constitutional or illegal orders."
If you follow an unconstitutional order... Are you
A) brave
B) patriotic
C) protecting the political elites you don't even know
I mean "people" you don't know. That last one is a nice double edged sword.
Or even worse, if you don't follow these orders but continue to function within the "justice" system thereby lending it a veneer of actual moral reasoning, are you any of the above?
I say veneer since any action you undertake within said system being undermined at any later point in a process is just "tough luck" to the "good" people operating therein. (Also conveniently not the people being harmed)
I'm sure a lot of Nazis/communists had good morals and intentions, that's the most horrifying thing about that historical lesson.
"...However, the "lock her up" mantra, which pro-Trump crowds directed at other Democrats including Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, gave me the creeps..."
Yeah, a chant by a crowd without any power at all = FBI shenanigans.
Greenhut needs treatment for TDS.
Greenhut, who resides in CA, was apparently asleep when the mostly white residents of city of Fullerton arose in response to the beating death of Kelly Thomas, and recalled several of the "pro police" city councilmen.
This is the sort of faulty argument used by liberals when they say "libertarians who resist police militarization should also support gun control." They're not the same things. Federal agencies engaging in a coordinated attack on a former president is on a different level than arguable reform measures like nuking qualified immunity (Reason's pet project) or getting rid of unions.
When were republicans against things like putting body cams on police? And like others have noted here, they were never big fans of the federal behemoth. State rights is a cause celebre among conservatives.
Now, suddenly, the Right seems to believe progressives were right—it only took the FBI to target their beloved ex-president to open their eyes.
They've always known. The problem is that Democrats latched onto police reform in the wake of the 2020 riots, which meant Republicans had to oppose the idea as a matter of principle.
Exactly.
Since when did the Reason comments section get taken over by MAGA chuds?
And Greenhut is now supposedly some closet leftist for pointing out Republican hypocrisy on law enforcement?
The MAGAts aren't supporting police reform. This is "law and order" authoritarianism. The authoritarians think the purpose of the law is to suppress the undesirables and leave "good people" alone. Since they view Trump as "good people," they don't care what crimes he may have committed: the law shouldn't be used against him.
The "if they're doing this to Trump, they'll do it to you" meme is among the most stupid of the Trump era, and quite encapsulates the stupidity of MAGA. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have long been doing this to the rest of us, and with far less caution and respect.
Another "Reason" author who neglected the adjacent article -
FBI Misled Judge in Obtaining Warrant To Seize Hundreds of ...
but the problem is conservative hypocrites... BS!!
The chant of lock her up would have been better said as "DO YOUR JOB" The DOJ is corrupt in picking who they will prosecute. They claim they dont have evidence to convict, but will keep digging into Trump and any associates until they find the flimsy thread of evidence for prosecutions. Give us the names of who makes the call and hold them accountable for the inequality of standards they use.---------- I, Grampa