Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

'Constitutional Conservatives' Lose Interest in Holding Trump Accountable

As on war and spending, the constitutional conservative approach to oversight is best demonstrated when the president is a Democrat.

When Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio), Rep. Mark Meadows (R–N.C.), Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.), and six other colleagues co-founded the House Freedom Caucus in January 2015, there was ample reason for libertarians to cheer. Unlike the soft-spined conservatism of the larger Republican Study Committee, the Freedom Caucus promised to be much more hardcore about spending, war, constitutionalism, and oversight of the executive branch. "We support open, accountable and limited government, the Constitution, and the rule of law," a founding statement from Jordan's office read.

As chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits, and Administrative Rules, Jordan frequently took a moralistic approach to calling out the Obama administration's lies. "From the beginning, what President Obama told Americans about his health care law proved false," he charged, accurately, in February 2015.

When the House passed (though the Senate did not take up) a resolution in 2014 requesting appointment of a special counsel to investigate the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of Tea Party groups, the author was no surprise: Jim Jordan. "We need this Special Counsel to help us get to the truth because the so-called investigation by the Justice Department has been a joke," he said at the time.

So how did Jordan react to the May 2017 appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel to oversee the FBI's ongoing investigation into the Russia-related activities of President Donald Trump? "Well, I'm—you know, look, I guess I'll keep an open mind," were the congressman's first recorded public words. That mind has been closing ever since.

Five weeks later, Jordan and Meadows were already co-authoring op-eds saying it was "time to investigate the investigators" because Mueller's team leaned too Democratic. One month after that, Jordan signed onto an official request for a second special counsel, this one focusing on potential crimes by Hillary Clinton. The congressman is a permanent fixture on cable news, hyping the latest soon-to-be-forgotten Mueller-probe controversy and issuing grave condemnations against any official seemingly caught in a lie.

Except Donald Trump.

In an April CNN interview, Anderson Cooper asked Jordan whether he thinks Trump "lies a lot." Jordan answered, "I do not." Cooper then asked whether he had ever heard the president lie. "He's always been square with me," the congressman said. After a few more attempts, Cooper settled on whether Trump has ever "publicly said anything that is a lie." Jordan's stammery answer: "I mean, look, I don't know of it. Nothing comes to mind, but look, people who talk as much as you and I do, my guess is probably, Anderson, you may have said something at some point that wasn't 100 percent accurate." So had he ever heard Trump later correct and apologize for a misstatement? "I don't know that he said something wrong that he needs to apologize for."

Jordan's obsequiousness and situational morality, shared by a sizeable number of House Republicans, is already showing evidence of harming the very president he aims to protect.

By crying wolf over a never-ending series of Mueller-related scandals and document reveals that fizzled on the launching pad—most notably, the long-awaited February memo from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R–Calif.) showing the investigative origins of the Russia probe—Trump's apologists are training Americans to tune out even those critiques that have some merit, such as evidence of dishonest leakage from the likes of former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

By looking more like partisan hacks than constitutional stalwarts, Republicans give a disgruntled populace even less reason to vote for them, potentially jeopardizing their majorities in both the House and the Senate, where any future impeachment trial would take place.

Trump himself hampers his public defenders by barking out conspiratorial insults ("witch hunt!"), saying stuff that isn't true, and changing his stories on a dime. The Comey firing had nothing whatsoever to do with the Russia probe, Vice President Mike Pence ostentatiously pronounced right after the news broke. Two days later, Trump was cheerfully volunteering the contrary.

The Jim Jordans of the world may yet provide a valuable function in this dreary process, by holding Mueller and his gang to a more demanding standard of rectitude. But as on war and spending, the constitutional conservative approach to oversight is best demonstrated when the president is a Democrat.

Photo Credit: Joanna Andreasson

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Partisans will act like partisans. More news about that at 11:00!!!!

  • JesseAz||

    Except beIN against the Mueller investigation isn't necessarily partisan, see a certain Harvard professor.

    Matt is rambling in this article and making base assumptions that there are no issues with the Mueller investigation. He implies it is fully on the up and up despite basically no links to trump. Mueller had to stretch and twist to connect Mueller to trump in his filings last week

    Not even sure what Matt's actual issue is with Jim Jordon other than Jordan isn't a lout never Trumper.

    This article is a waste of time. Probably hammered out just a few minutes before a cocktail party.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Pretty much this.

  • MoreFreedom||

    Seems to me the Freedom Caucus was under the impression there was evidence that Trump colluded with Russia (the FBI did open an investigation into it), and as the evidence came out, it became apparent that Hillary and Obama manufactured a pretext to use the government to spy on Trump's campaign to first ensure he wasn't elected, and when that didn't work, to frame him (and they're still trying, but now mostly trying to cover up their corruption regarding what they did).

    Mueller's only been able to charge a few people related to Trump's campaign for nothing involving Trump, and on process charges (lying to the FBI, some of which are falling apart). He indited some Russian trolls thinking he'd never have a trial and have to produce evidence (now he wants to delay). But it seems he's learned, and now has charged Russian military officers for hacking the DNC, for which there will never be a trial. Isn't a foreigner telling how they'd like an election to go free speech (e.g. Obama stating he'd like Israel's election to go a certain way)? Mueller has made an allegation, and we'll never see any evidence to support it I bet.

  • Moo Cow||

    You're a good little Republican foot soldier.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Stop with the ad hominems. Refute the argument, don't name call.

  • MarioLanza||

    And you problem agree with the author's description that "Mueller's team leaned too Democratic"

    And that category 6 hurricane was just a summer shower.

    Rep Jordan's mind was open initially. Months and months and millions of dollars rightly closed it.

    The only ones that have a open mind to Mueller's unending witchhunt are the closed minded Trump derangement syndrome types.

  • Tony||

    Given how much time you've evidently spent sucking "thoughts" into your ears directly from Sean Hannity's mouth hole, it's a bit rich to accuse others of wasting it.

  • DesigNate||

    That's right Tony, nobody to the right of Mao has independent thoughts or ideas, they just get them from "right wing media".

  • Fancylad||

    "Facts" for Hihn are what other people call "my opinion".

  • fgsll||

    Tony and Michael Hihn consider their opinions to be facts. They never let REAL facts get in their way.

  • MarioLanza||

    Christians aren't a threat to liberty. Our liberty is threatened by the leftists including those who seek out Christian (but not Muslim!) business people and sue them for hundreds of thousands of dollars for not baking a cake and would silence anyone who disagrees with their disastrous worldview using "hate" speech laws.

  • DesigNate||

    You really should stop posting under Mr. Hihn's name, it's not okay.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    That phony website is a joke. It proves nothing other than you're more disturbed than originally thought.

  • Robert||

    Was there a cocktail party across the street from the tortillas joint Terry Colon pictures Matt Welch writing these pieces from?

    Stuff like this really is sad. Mr. Welch seemed to be one of the most level-headed HyR bloggers in a sea of TDS. I bet w some legwork, he could find some actual, worthy criticism of the Congressional watchmen in failing to watch something—or even some good news about them. Instead, what, watch Anderson Cooper pitch a loaded Q & get a loaded A?

  • fgsll||

    Reason Magazine sure isn't what it use to be. I guess the desire now is to become Pravda Jr. or The Daily Worker II. Add that loathsome cartoon (was one like it published when Obama was sucking up to dictators or when Shrub was "looking in Putin's eyes and seeing his soul")? Apparently Matt wants every liberarian to be a good little never-Trumper like him or ELSE. I'm sick of what use to be my favorite magazine. In other words, might as well send my upcoming subscription copies to someone else -- either that or straight into the round file they go.

  • Cy||

    Pretty sure everyone is still euphoric that it isn't Hillary Clinton.

  • Echo Chamber||

    That glow does not wear off

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Like stripper glitter from a Trump lap dance?

  • Echo Chamber||

    Ewwwwwww

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Five weeks later, Jordan and Meadows were already co-authoring op-eds saying it was "time to investigate the investigators" because Mueller's team leaned too Democratic."

    Now, why would anybody be suspicious of Mueller's investigation just because he's only hiring partisan Democrats? We're not talking "lean" here, essentially EVERY Mueller hire whose party affiliation could be identified was a Democrat. No exceptions that I've heard of.

  • Cy||

    I think the author wants Trump held accountable, but let's just look the other way on all of the other blatant partisanship going around... because... TRUMP!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Matt Welch advocating that Hillary should have been president. It was her turn after all.

    Matt Welch doesnt care about the Constitution.

    Matt Welch doesnt care about the things Trump has done or is doing that are very Libertarian-ish.

    Matt Welch doesnt care that Mueller is a joke and his 'investigation' has dragged on for over a year with nothing on illegal tampering with election 2016.

    Matt Welch has TDS. But we all knew that.

  • JesseAz||

    I don't always go full TDS, but when I do I'm Matt Welch.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    More likely lc1789.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Matt Welch is even teaching some of the interns how to go full TDS.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You've got Trump Fellation Syndrome, Jesse.

  • sarcasmic||

    Shorter lc1789: ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH MY LORD AND SAVIOR TRUMP HATES AMERICA!!!!!!!!!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That's hilarious, anarchist.

    Trump has stuff he does wrong that is easy to bash him on.

    You people go a different route.

    RINOs in Congress are more of a problem for America than Trump is.

  • sarcasmic||

    Shorter lc1789: Anyone who isn't in lockstep with The Party is a traitor!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Anyone who does not act like a Republican is not a Republican, if that helps you understand what a RINO is.

    Sarcasmic is worried that anarchists will no longer be accepted in regular parties as they seek to undermine the United States of America.

  • sarcasmic||

    shorter lc1789: Cast out the infidels!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Naw. We shall just expose them for the RINOs and LINOs that they are and they will hide like little rats on their own.

  • sarcasmic||

    That brown shirt looks snappy on you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nazis wore brown shirts and they are socialists.

    Enjoy that Hugo Boss black uniform there anarchist.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    LC is good, you are bad. No one wants you here. Whoever you are.

  • damikesc||

    I thought the Left here were the ones calling others traitor.

    you want to argue Trump spends too much? Yup, he does.
    His tweets are lame? By and large, yes.

    THIS thin gruel, though? Are you kidding?

  • damikesc||

    I thought the Left here were the ones calling others traitor.

    you want to argue Trump spends too much? Yup, he does.
    His tweets are lame? By and large, yes.

    THIS thin gruel, though? Are you kidding?

  • DesigNate||

    That's just retarded sarc. It's patently obvious that the Mueller investigation is a load of bullshit. Nearly two years and no actual collusion or election tampering, just a wide ranging fishing expedition (that is supposed to be a hyper focused investigation).

    And it's been clear for two years now that many at Reason have lost their damn minds. (I wouldn't accuse them of wanting Hillary as president though.)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sarcasmic is pretty retarded. He's an anarchist who hates to be called anything but a Nanarchist.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    And I'm sure that the fact that the DOJ higher ups were/are all Hillary supporters has nothing to do with that.

  • damikesc||

    And it's been clear for two years now that many at Reason have lost their damn minds. (I wouldn't accuse them of wanting Hillary as president though.)

    In the pre-election article about their voting plans, Hillary came in a close second to Gary Johnson here. It was hardly a slaughtering of her, mind you.

    Who got zero votes? Trump.

    Who, mind you, is the most libertarian governing of the three.

  • hello.||

    ... says the demented old piece of shit living in a Medicare-funded old age facility and using hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money to fight a losing and futile battle against brain cancer.

    Hey Mikey nobody gives a fuck about your transfer payment "benefits". Nobody owes you their money at the barrel of the government's gun. Stealing less is not "borrowing". Go fuck yourself. Soon and very soon you'll be dead and buried and off our collective backs and the world will be nothing but better for it. Get to it you obsolete old piece of dogshit.

  • MikeP2||

    "By looking more like partisan hacks than constitutional stalwarts, Republicans..."

    They are all partisan hacks, regardless of party.
    But of course let's focus on Republicans for the virtue signally benefits and cocktail parties.

  • Calidissident||

    Well Republicans currently control all the branches of government, and this specific article is about critiquing a group of Republicans that showed some promise of being about consistent constitutional conservatism, checking the executive, etc. and how they're falling short of that goal. So that could be why the article focuses on Republicans.

    But I'm sure it's more likely that it's because Welch loves Democrats and wants cocktail party invites. And I'm sure you'll be the first person to respond when someone else criticizes Democrats without also criticizing Republicans.

  • John||

    That may be true. But expecting Mueller to account for himself is not one of the reasons. Everyone of good conscience should be appalled by partisan law enforcement. And that is all Mueller is.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Mueller is even worse than simply being partisan law enforcement. That guy is a corrupt bureaucrat though and though.

  • MoreFreedom||

    I agree Mueller is a corrupt bureaucrat. He knowingly let 4 innocent people stay in jail, among a long list of abuse. See lists.grabien.com/ list-robert-mueller-biggest -scandals-and-controversies-his-career
    (spaces inserted into link) or just search the internet on mueller controversies (see the one regarding Bulger). He was also head of the FBI during the Uranium One scandal in which Obama's administration allowed Russians to buy 20% of the US's uranium reserves. Frankly, I think Hillary blackmailed him, given she got all the FBI files on prominent Republicans (of which Mueller is/was a registered Republican, though you wouldn't know it based on all the Democrat partisans on his special counsel team now).

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    His stint in Massachusetts (research his association with Whitey Bulger, et. al.) should have put him behind bars for the rest of his days, The man has been demonstrably corrupt for his entire career.

  • Overt||

    "this specific article is about...[constitutional conservatives]...checking the executive, etc. and how they're falling short of that goal."

    Is it really about that?

    Because the only real examples are Jordan's call for a special investigator on the IRS-Tea Party scandal compared against his disdain for the Mueller investigation and unwillingness to call the leader of his party a liar.

    What do those counter-examples have to do with a member of the Liberty caucus? The IRS-Tea Party scandal was directly about Freedom of Speech and the government targeting citizens on a partisan basis. And guess what? His criticism of the Mueller probe is that it is a bunch of partisans targeting citizens with trumped (natch!) up charges. It just so happens that the citizens were a bunch of political candidates.

    Now he may be right or wrong about either of those cases, but it does not seem inconsistent.

    In the meanwhile, Jordan has been a somewhat decent pro-liberty candidate, though he (like many DC pols) is heavy on the drug warrior. He has voiced concern about Tariffs, and voted against making attacks on law officers a federal crime, against increasing law enforcement presence at schools, and against FISA renewal.

    This article is basically a bunch of words saying "Unless you are a thorn in Trump's side, we want nothing to do with you."

  • Calidissident||

    You don't think being unwilling to hold the president accountable like he would if he were a Democrat is indicative of inconsistency of applying principles to executive oversight?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    People just dont believe your motives anymore. You sucked Obama's cock for 8 years.

    You're on a 'Libertarian' website. All Libertarians agree that government is too large and too wasteful.

  • Calidissident||

    Please cite these examples of me sucking Obama's cock for 8 years? If my posts, which were generally critical but perhaps not as intensely as some others here, about Obama qualify as cocksucking, what are your posts about Trump? Ass eating?

    Also, unless you posted under a different alias I don't remember you posting here for the vast majority of Obama's presidency.

  • hello.||

    Please cite these examples of me sucking Obama's cock for 8 years?

    I love it when you fucking retards pull that card on a site with no username-searchable post history. As if it would matter anyway since you spent the entire 8 years coming up from Obama's crotch occasionally for breath to say "I'm not a partisan! YOU ARE!"

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Let's get fake Hihn banned for good from Reason.

  • Overt||

    Where in the article was that argument cogently made? How is calling the leader of your party a liar on tv holding him accountable? How is investigating a political candidate holding the EXECUTIVE accountable? And what do any of these have to do with being a constitutional conservative?

    As I noted above, in both Special Council cases, his argument is that the government should not be targeting citizens on partisan grounds. Sure, whether he thinks Mueller is partisan or following real facts likely depends on his world view, but they aren't inconsistent at all. In both cases he is saying that the government (IRS and then DOJ) has overstepped its constitutional grounds.

    And as I noted in my post, Jordan has also voted in some cases to be more restrictive of government- and spoken out against Tariffs.

    Jordan may or may not be a hypocrite. But that is not at all evident from the arguments this article makes. Essentially, Jordan refuses to shit on Trump and so he must be a bad guy. That's Welch's argument, and it only works if you believe that Trump is just awful and needs to go, no matter what.

    (And before we start with the insults, you can go back through my posts. I find myself defending Trump often here, unfortunately, but I am also critical of his populist immigration and tariff stances.)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Many Americans have gone along with Mueller because they probably feel that a president should not be above the law.

    Mueller has run that goodwill into the ground.

    The Lefties sense the shift of the winds and will get more aggressive as Americans demand that Mueller put up or shut up.

  • Calidissident||

    Let me put it this way - if you replaced Trump in this situation with Obama or Clinton, do you think Jordan's behavior and commentary would be the same as it actually is?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    YOUR behavior would.

  • Overt||

    " if you replaced Trump in this situation with Obama or Clinton, do you think Jordan's behavior and commentary would be the same as it actually is?"

    He may or may not. Given that he has been critical of the Surveillance State- including voting against Trump's wishes on FISA and other acts, publicly questioning Trump's Tariff policies, and voting to curtail law enforcement excess, there seems to be an indication that he truly is motivated by reducing the government to more constitutional limits, and would do the same in either case.

    But you answered none of my questions. How is investigating a politician (prior to being executive) for ties with Russia about restricting the government to its constitutional limits? How is calling Trump a liar on TV restricting the government to its constitutional limits? I agree that there can be other good reasons for these things, but that wasn't Welch's argument.

    A President could have committed a crime prior to entering office and he could spout lies. Neither of those automatically makes that person an enemy to a constitutionally limited government. The only way Welch's view makes sense is if you think that Trump by his nature is a threat to a constitutionally limited government and that removing him (for whatever reason) is the only logical way to preserve such a government.

  • hello.||

    But you answered none of my questions.

    Evading the questions is a lot easier when you have no point other than "THEY WUZ MEAN TO CHOCOLATE JESUS! THEY PERSECUTED HIM!"

  • DesigNate||

    But the Mueller investigation isn't about oversight and it's not about the President or his Cabinet abusing their power, etc. It's supposed to be about determining if Trump worked with Russia to win the election.

  • fgsll||

    If you pay attention to every single democrat in the country, they've been yelling 'COLLUSION' since November 2016.

  • hello.||

    The appointment is ENTIRELY about Russia.

    It's entirely about Russian interference in the 2016 election and was launched by an oppo dossier taken out by the Democratic party that led to an investigation of one party's candidate to the exclusion of the other. So far the only crimes uncovered involved process violations or unrelated financial charges from a decade prior. Funny that when the investigation began you assured us that it WAS about collusion and that Mueller was going to bring Trump personally up on charges that would end his presidency. But now it has nothing at all to do with that and never did.

    You'll be scrawling this Democratic Underground copy on the walls of the nursing home in your own shit while the brain cancer eats away that last tiny fragment of your mind while Trump is getting reelected.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You should stop getting your information from Media Matters.

    Let's all get together and get fake Hihn banned.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You should stop getting your information from Media Matters.

    Let's all get together and get fake Hihn banned.

  • hello.||

    Nah that's a lie actually. A dumb lie to tell in light of the fact that the GOP congress is what restrained the spending in Obama's 2nd term in the first place. But still a lie.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Let's get fake Hihn banned.

  • Azathoth!!||

    So, you loved these guys until they didn't get on the TDS bandwagon with you.

    And you think that they're the ones who've changed--yet your commentariat -even those who white knight-- have been screaming about how you've abandoned libertarian principles to BE on the TDS train.

    And you have. Your economists are screaming for managed trade(so long as it has 'free' in it's name somewhere). Your social commentators err on the side of social justice. You have completely given up the debate about 'nation as property of it's citizens' in favor of the chosen path of the communist international.

    Sad

  • Vin_Decks!!!||

    I think you meant: "SAD!!"

  • tlapp||

    A democrat that is a constitutional conservative? Name one? Just one....waiting....waiting.....

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    We turned our federal government into an organization that picks winners and losers in our everyday lives, and they do it using marketing techniques rather than procedural.

    Can you honestly blame anybody - government officials, private citizens, journalists, presidents, congress people - from playing the game we've told them to play.

    Until we get our federal government acting within strict constitutional bounds, this behavior will continue and in fact get more prevalent.

  • Jerryskids||

    Sure are a lot of Cheetos crumbs all over the comments here, somebody should come in here and sweep this mess up.

    TDS on display - anybody says one word critical of your Messiah and you're compelled to leap to his defense like a pack of slavering lap dogs. Pathetic.

  • Homple||

    Now who can argue with that?

  • Shirley Knott||

    TDS is an equal opportunity madness.
    Some see only the messiah.
    Some see only the devil.

    Making it all about Trump is deranged.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    So its retards all the way down?

  • sarcasmic||

  • Shirley Knott||

    I think they're all bozos on that bus.

  • Jerryskids||

    I've said it many times - Trump is a troll, stop feeding the troll.

    But when you've got commenters on a libertarian(ish) website defending tariffs? Why? If Obama had said trade wars are good and easy to win and then started a battle royale trade war, would one single commenter here defend his actions? I think not. But Trump says 'X' - "Brilliant!" Trump 24 hours later says 'Not-X' - "Brilliant! He's using reverse psychology!" No he's not, he's just saying whatever random shit pops into his head because he has no principles beyond "Trump = Good" and it shouldn't matter to a libertarian whether or not he's using his powers for good, nobody should have that kind of power. It's the principle of the thing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump offered our trading partners the chance to have zero trade restrictions with the USA if they dropped their trade restrictions. They refused.

    Trump is trying to pressure the trading partners to lower their trade restrictions since the USA is the best market. It probably wont work but I would give him 6 months or a year to see.

    Obama could never pull off getting trade restrictions with other countries in a better position for the USA. First, he was a bro not a shrewd businessman. Secondly, Obama was never taken seriously by other nations.

  • sarcasmic||

    Our trading partners are initiating force on their citizens who dare to buy our exports! Our government must respond by initiating force on our citizens who buy their exports! They declared war on use when they initiated force on their own people! We must respond by initiating force on our people! The country who uses the most force upon its own people wins!

  • Calidissident||

    He, like the other Trump apologists on this issue, also leaves out that the US has plenty of restrictions of our own (which Trump has never criticized) and that the overall tariff levels of the US and our main trading partners are similar. Instead of seeking to negotiate mutual lowering of these barriers, Trump decided the best way to improve free trade was to start a trade.

    And if you conclude that this shows Trump is a protectionist who occasionally pays lip service to free trade and/or that he has no idea what he's doing here, that just proves you have TDS.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sarcasmic is really upset these days.

    He follows me around here and spouts nonsense without even adding content to a discussion.

    Poor Sarcasmic.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Why do you ignore this--

    Trump offered our trading partners the chance to have zero trade restrictions with the USA if they dropped their trade restrictions. They refused.

    It's REALLY important.

  • sarcasmic||

    Trump offered to stop initiating force on Americans who buy stuff from foreigners if foreign governments stopped initiating force on people who buy stuff from Americans. When they refused Trump decided to initiate more force on Americans who buy stuff from foreigners.

    Now foreign governments are initiating more force on people who buy stuff from Americans, so protectionists want to initiate more force on Americans who buy stuff from foreigners.

    This stupidity was demolished by Adam Smith a couple centuries ago, but protectionists insist that he was a dumbass.

  • hello.||

    "Uhhh... Uhhh... TARIFFS! See how bad Trump is? What? That wasn't the topic of this article? T-TRUMP!!!! TRUMP-SUCKERS!"

    If you're going to deploy the red herring fallacy you should practice a little bit so you don't accidentally make it so fucking obvious.

  • hello.||

    Also if you want to bring up trade how about the fact that you and every other chocolate Jesus worshipper on this site wanted to ram through TPP without congressional oversight and despite the fact that it created an unaccountable international bureaucracy to manage trade and to enforce content restrictions across national borders?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Let's get fake Hihn banned.

  • MikeP2||

    "Trump himself hampers his public defenders by barking out conspiratorial insults ("witch hunt!"), "

    And you think it isn't a "witch hunt"?!? that's pretty sad

  • John||

    The subject of the whitch hunt continues to make things harder on himself by objecting to his fate. Shorter Welch, "STOP RESISTING!!"

    Welch should just get it over with and start writing as Dunphy.

  • JP88||

    Is this about "constitutional conservatives" or Jim Jordan? Or are all "constitutional conservatives" exactly like Jim Jordan? Are all Muslims terrorists? Lazy thinking in this article.

  • Rhywun||

    Anderson Cooper asked Jordan whether he thinks Trump "lies a lot."

    WTF kind of answer was he expecting? Oh, you mean it was actually just a "gotcha"? That the author is using as some sort of hard-hitting evidence of... politicians behaving like politicians.

  • John||

    This is a new low for Welch. First of all, Meuller is not conducting oversight of Trump. He is investigating things that happened before the election. That is not oversight in the way Welch implies. Second of all, demanding accountability from Mueller is oversight. According to Welch, the freedom Caucus is walking away from the Constitution because it refuses to endorse the idea of a completely unaccountable prosecutor conducting an endless and partisan investigation of public officials.

    Pathetic

  • John||

    Reason is now attacking anyone who criticizes the Mueller probe. Welch now loves the DOJ and prosecutors and hates anyone who expects them to explain themselves. A bit of an unusual view for a Libertarian isn't it?

  • sarcasmic||

    Trump's apologists are training Americans to tune out even those critiques that have some merit

    That implies that there are critiques that do not have merit. Heck, that could be interpreted to mean most of the critiques don't have merit.

    But for a reflexive Republican Trump worshiper, no critiques have merit. Because Trump can do no wrong. It's no different than Obama supporters calling any critique of him as being motivated by racism.

    Partisans are gonna partisan.

  • John||

    I am not talking about Trump. I am talking about Mueller. Welch spends the entire article attacking people for the crime of expecting Muieller to account for himself. He never says and never has said what these critiques are. Note the use of the weasel word critique rather than critisisim or problems. You critique mistakes. It is a version of "mistakes were made".

    You and Welch sound no different than the cop apologists. Sure there may have been mistakes, which I won't say what they were, but the real problem is the people attacking our brave men in blue. That is what you sound like. Why don't you just be honest and admit you love cops just so long as they are investigating people you don't like?

  • sarcasmic||

    Shorter John: "Reason is a leftist rag that has never been critical of a Democrat ever because they said something bad about my Team! Waaaahhhhh!"

  • John||

    Whatever you say there Dunphy. I am just one of those traitors who attacks are brave men in blue. You stand up for them.

  • sarcasmic||

    Sure, Red Tony. Whatever you say.

  • John||

    You got it Dunphy. Tell me more about the brave men at DOJ.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Anarchist Sarcasmic, now attacking critiques of Reason.

    I wonder which team he is on.

  • sarcasmic||

    We all know which Team you're on.

    Republicans! Fuck yeah!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You really cant read, can you?

    Poor sarcasmic.

  • John||

    Suck that badge Sarcasmic. Suck that badge.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm sorry, I can't understand you with that Republican dick in your mouth.

  • John||

    Maybe if you would spit the cop Dick out of yours, you could hear. You love prosecutors. Who knew?

  • sarcasmic||

    Yeah. Because pointing out your reflexive whining about any criticism of your Team equals support for the other Team. Whatever you say.

  • John||

    I am just an evil partisan attacking our brave men at DOJ. You called it Dunphy

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Sarcastic, quit being in idiot

  • DesigNate||

    This isn't about Trump and the shitty policies he has implemented though. It's about a fishing expedition by Mueller to find anything they can indict Trump on.

    It's no different then the way the FBI goes after crime families. They can never get concrete proof on the kingpin stuff and end up getting the boss for tax evasion or money laundering, etc.

    How do you not see this?

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm just making fun of John and lc1789 who have kittens whenever Reason doesn't praise their messiah.

  • DesigNate||

    Ahhh.

    I really should have figured that was it. Sorry if I came off too confrontational.

  • John||

    Sure you are Dunphy. You love this shit because you have never really had a problem with cops. You just had a problem with who they were going cop on. Now that DOJ has the right target, you are finally able to show where your real loyalties lie.

    Just change your screen name and be honest

  • sarcasmic||

    Meeeoow!

  • John||

    You called it Dunphy.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sarcasmic is an anarchist.

    Anything to bring about the demise of Libertarianism and the USA is okay for him.

  • Tony||

    What's to criticize? Be specific. I realize it will be difficult considering there's little publicly known about the investigation other than the many indictments, but surely you have something.

  • sarcasmic||

    It exists. What else is there to criticize?

  • Tony||

    I don't get why these idiots don't at least hedge on their undying support for Trump. Are they all drunk or something? Like this is going to end well.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's no different than Obamabots screaming "Racism!" at anyone who dared to criticize Black Jesus.

    Partisans gonna partisan.

  • DesigNate||

    Actually, that is a fair criticism.

    Because in two years they haven't produced any fucking proof of collusion or election tampering. All they've gotten are indictments for a handful of people on unrelated charges. Charges, mind you, that the FBI could have investigated and filed without a special prosecutor.

  • Calidissident||

    I'm not arguing about whether or not there is any collusion or illegal election tampering by the Trump campaign, but if there was I don't know why one would expect that to come out in the middle of the investigation. Would it be surprising for that sort of thing to be revealed in a conclusions report once the investigation has run its course? I seriously doubt anyone outside Mueller's team knows what exactly they do or don't have. Also, Mueller was appointed a little over a year ago, and this doesn't strike me as an unusually long investigation for a special counsel. The Starr report was issued more than 4 years after he was appointed (and about something completely unrelated to what he was initially appointed to investigate).

  • DesigNate||

    Fair enough on it only being a year. And good point about the Starr report.

    I assume (based on the last year) that if they find something they won't be able to sit on it long enough to conclude the investigation without it being leaked. It's probably wrong to assume that, but there it is.

  • Calidissident||

    I don't think there's been much leaking from the Mueller investigation itself. Most of the leaking under Trump afaik have been from people working in the agencies/departments or administration officials.

  • John||

    The evidence indicates that the FBI tried to entrap Trump into colluding and were unsuccessful. Isn't that a big deal? Or does it not matter because Trump!!

    Also, whatever happened to the process being the punishment? You admit there is no evidence of collusion. Is probable cause for an investigation just one of those old things that don't matter anymore because Trump!!

  • Calidissident||

    Can you please cite your claim in the first paragraph?

    I didn't admit anything of the sort. There isn't conclusive proof of collusion, that doesn't mean there's no grounds for investigation. There's already public proof of Don Jr., Kushner, and Manafort trying to collude with someone who they believed was giving them dirt on behalf of the Russian government. That this may not have panned out as they had hoped doesn't mean that isn't grounds for suspicion. Trump's former campaign manager is a crook who has had close ties to the Kremlin and their cronies for years. There's also Roger Stone messaging with Guccifer 2.0, the alleged DNC hacker who is believed by the intelligence agencies to be an alias created by Russian intelligence - that doesn't merit further investigation? There's more I'm leaving out and there could also be classified information that could serve as valid grounds for an investigation, obviously neither of us knows the full extent of what investigators know in counter-intelligence investigations.

    Bottom line is you would have a complete 180 perspective on this if this was Obama or Clinton and one of their campaigns at the center of the controversy.

  • DesigNate||

    If we changed everything to being President Bush and President-Elect Obama, but all the actions of the parties stayed the same, people would rightly be calling this a farce.

  • Calidissident||

    I think many people would have different reactions. There probably would be a bunch of people on the left currently outrage who would be defensive about it. I think you're kidding yourself if you think most people on the right would be acting the same way in your scenario.

  • DesigNate||

    Most people on the right probably wouldn't be acting the same way. Many of the people here, even the right leaning ones, would be.

    Maybe I'm too optimistic though.

  • hello.||

    There probably would be a bunch of people on the left currently outrage who would be defensive about it.

    Like you for example.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Collusion is not a crime. Don, Jr, Kushner, Manafort were meeting with someone they thought had opposition research [oppo]. The person wanted money for it. They declined. Nothing illegal or improper about any of it.

    The nonsense about Roger Stone is just that. Nonsense. None of it is true. We know for a fact that the DNC was not hacked, the emails were leaked, almost certainly by Seth Rich.

    Bottom line, all of the so-called facts that any probable cause was based on has been shown to be fabricated by "deep state" operatives in the Obama DOJ that now find themselves conveniently employed in the Mueller investigation.

  • hello.||

    Don, Jr, Kushner, Manafort were meeting with someone they thought had opposition research [oppo].

    Unlike the DNC who actually paid anonymous Russian sources for oppo and then used it to gain a FISA warrant to spy on their rival's campaign. But clearly it is Trump that needs to be investigated here. That's clear.

  • hello.||

    The Starr report was issued more than 4 years after he was appointed (and about something completely unrelated to what he was initially appointed to investigate).

    With Democrats like you kicking and screaming about how poor Billy Boy was getting railroaded the entire time and ending with congress doing away with the independent counsel. But now partisan star chamber investigations are just peachy keen.

  • fgsll||

    DesigNate You should add that those 4-5 indictments cost about

    DesigNate You should add that those 4-5 indictments cost us over $3,000,000. I'm not even counting those 13 indictments of Russian citizens today. Mueller knows the Russians won't allow them to come to trial so he is sure he will never have to prove those cases. They were just a way to say "See how much I'm doing? You can't ask me to put up or shut up, now!" and some people will fall for it.

  • hello.||

    Lol. They were never in America to begin with you ignorant fuck.

  • John||

    Indictments are not conviction you half wit. Yes Tony you would lock everyone who disagrees with you in camps. So, you don't have anything to add here , as if you ever do.

  • Tony||

    Oh I was just looking for an answer to my question, which you have indisputably claimed you already have. So, carry on.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Even pleas with Mueller dont really mean anything.

    Anyone charged by Mueller cannot get a fair trial even if they did violate the law.

    Trump is planning on pardoning everyone Mueller gets a plea bargain on. The Lefties know this which is another reason that they want to get rid of Trump.

    The GOP is so inept that Lefties, open borders, and Mueller are the best things going for the GOP. Add in Trump massive good actions as president and election 2018 will be a horror show for Democrats.

    Most useful idiot Democrats dont even see it coming. Democrat leaders see it coming.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    The party that wants power always threatens the party in power with holding them accountable. Then when they get in power, they don't.

    Remember how Obama was talking about holding Bush accountable? Yeah, didn't take long for that to disappear.

    In reality, no president or party wants to hold the previous accountable for anything because it sets a precedence that they may be held accountable when the next guy comes in.

  • sarcasmic||

    In reality, no president or party wants to hold the previous accountable for anything because it sets a precedence that they may be held accountable when the next guy comes in.

    Yep. And that's why bad legislation is rarely if ever repealed. If legislators set a precedent for repealing other legislator's legislation, their legislation might be repealed in the future. Professional courtesy and all that.

  • I can't even||

    What the hell was the point of this article?

  • Bubba Jones||

    All independent investigations are the same and you are either for them or against them.

  • John||

    Who doesn't love the independence of secret police?

  • sarcasmic||

    You loved them when they were investigating Obama.

    Principals, not principles.

  • John||

    Oh really? Who ever investigated Obama? Was there ever a special counsel for you to cheer for? Not that I recall. Am I missing something Dunlhy?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    More lies anarchist.

    Obama was never investigated. For anything he did wrong. He even got a Nobel Peace prize for murdering Americans overseas via drone.

  • DesigNate||

    To be fair, he got that Peace prize before he started really murderdroning anything that moved in the MidEast.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    True. My bad. I forgot which came first, the murder or the reward.

  • juris imprudent||

    Matt is shocked to find partisan shenanigans from Congressional Republicans. Do tell Matt, what American voting block elects "constitutional stalwarts" in place of, you know, Republicans and Democrats?

  • sarcasmic||

    "How DARE you accuse Republicans of shenanigans?!?! You are an anarchist! You're Dunphy! You hate America! You voted for Hillary! AAAAAUUUGGGHHH!!!!"

    -John, lc1789, and the rest of the Trumptards

  • John||

    Those Trumptards are attacking the brave men in blue. You tell them Dunphy. You tell them. Suck that cop and DOJ Dick.

  • John||

    Softer Dunphy. Leave DOJ alone!!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sarcasmic is really flying off the handle like Tony and Butt do.

    If he adds a (snort) I am calling a Hihn audible.

  • Robert||

    Very disappointing piece. I thought from the head & subhead that it was going to be about holding Trump to acc't on policy matters, not on assessment of his integrity. Even then, it's about a single member of Congress's A to a fairly trivial Q on CNN. Whoopee.

  • hello.||

    Reagan cut taxes and ballooned the debt. What is different about Trump? Oh wait...

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    BUT BUT BUT WHATABOUT HILLARY AND OBAMA????????????????

    (Did I do that right?)

  • DesigNate||

    Except Hillary actually did something illegal.

  • Tony||

    Have you ever stopped to consider the sheer vastness of the conspiracy that would be required for your worldview to bear any relationship to reality?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Oh Tony, she publicly admitted to violating federal law.

  • DesigNate||

    So Comey lays out what she did wrong, how she violated the letter of the law, etc.

    And somehow, in your warped ass world view, that means she didn't break the law? A law, mind you, that Comey also said in the same fucking press conference would apply to other people and may lead to their prosecution.

    No conspiracy needed, douchebag.

  • Tony||

    I don't know Comey's role in this drama. He's responsible for her not being president, but he also somehow went against normal standards and practices and failed to indict her for the crime you claim she committed?

    Innocent until proven guilty is apparently not even on the table in this discussion.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Let's not discount the contribution of the aliens from Alpha Centuri's force field that kept her out of Michigan & Wisconsin.

  • hello.||

    It would certainly take a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy wouldn't it?

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    > Three years. NO PROOF.

    Absolute bullshit. The proof has been in public discussion for the past year and a half. There is a prima facie case that's an absolute slam dunk.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Comey's job was to investigate criminals like Hillary and recommend charges to the DOJ.

    Hillary admitted to mishandling classified information. Excuses poured out of her mouth, so there was no intent.

    Intent is not required to prosecute for that violation of federal law.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    It's all in the public record. The Navy sub crew guy that Trump just pardoned. That story shows the law. Hillary's own statements show her guilty behavior. An 3rd graders' understanding of English shows that "extremely careless" means the exact same thing as does "gross negligence"

    You are so dumb.

  • Samshile||

    Southern racists? The 3 generations ago died, amigo.

  • hello.||

    Are you aware that delusional psychosis is a psychological affliction? Probably not. You were already pretty ignorant before the dementia and brain cancer started rotting away your meager mental faculties.

  • Rockabilly||

    Hillary Clinton is still not president.

    Sweet, very very sweet.

  • fgsll||

    Saw your cartoon, not amused. Interesting the way what USE to be a great intelligent magazine is turning into Pravda, Jr. Anyway, I'm sick of you jerks. Don't know how many issues are left in my subscription, but CANCEL THEM.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " So how did Jordan react to the May 2017 appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel to oversee the FBI's ongoing investigation into the Russia-related activities of President Donald Trump? "Well, I'm—you know, look, I guess I'll keep an open mind," were the congressman's first recorded public words. "

    What he should have said was "It's a coup, and we're going to hang Mueller and all the criminal holdovers from the Obama administration for treason."

    And now Reason is siding with the Deep State Coup.

    Progressitarian moment.

    "Russia-related activities of President Donald Trump"

    Name one that has even a whiff of illegality.

  • Mark22||

    'Constitutional Conservatives' Lose Interest in Holding Trump Accountable

    Where did Trump violate the Constitution? What exactly do you want to hold him "accountable" for?

    Jordan's obsequiousness and situational morality, shared by a sizeable number of House Republicans, is already showing evidence of harming the very president he aims to protect.

    Your concern trolling is touching.

    Pardon me for not participating in your two minutes of hate.

  • Mark22||

    Hihn, it's pretty obvious that in your mind issues like "DNC hack", "election interference", etc. just all blend together into one big blur; I suppose that lack of comprehension shouldn't be surprising in a 75 year old.

    As for your threats of anal rape, a few decades ago, men might have taken offense at it. These days, such a threat from a weak, sick, little old man like you just make you look pathetic and thoroughly out of touch with reality.

  • Mark22||

    Am I a librul ... like Mark22 says

    You're no "librul". you're merely a senile, angry old man.

  • Mark22||

    Mark22 says EVERYONE not a Trumptard is a DNC hack. (smirk)

    Thanks for proving my point: you are confusing "the DNC hack" (a computer security incident) with calling you a "DNC hack".

  • para_dimz||

    Uptake is slow with this one. One more time. Trump was hired to be a wrecking ball, not your pope of the constitution. Eh, eh! No if, ands or buts. We needed someone to remove impediments to your popey guy or gal.

  • Samshile||

    "In an April CNN interview, Anderson Cooper asked Jordan whether he thinks Trump "lies a lot."

    The word lie is misleading since Trump loves the sarcasm. Like many of us he uses it as a tool. In addition, hyperbole for politics, making a point, and entertaining is a tool. Do those pundits lie when they act as if they dont get this?

  • Devastator||

    All the Republicans have bent over to take it from Trump because anyone who is the bought and sold dupe for crony capitalism that is the rule these days in Washington. They are used to taking it up the bum. No backbone at all

  • gphx||

    You stay up all night fapping to that fantasy, don't you? Never mind, the question was purely rhetorical. No one really wants to know.

  • gphx||

    All I read was 'WAAAAAH!'.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online