MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump Turns Drug Cartels Into Terror Cells: Reason Roundup

Plus: Stormy Daniels hints at more legal action and California ends the death penalty.

AdMedia/NewscomAdMedia/NewscomWho needs words to have meanings? Not our government, that's for sure these days. In an interview released Tuesday, President Donald Trump said his administration was "seriously" considering designating drug dealers "as terrorist organizations."

What makes someone selling drugs into a terrorist? That's an easy one: they come from south of the U.S. border.

Trump told Breitbart News: "We're thinking about doing it very seriously," the it being a designation that "Mexican drug cartels" are terrorist groups. "In fact, we've been thinking about it for a long time. ... As terrorists—as terrorist organizations, the answer is yes. They are."

No one wants to stick up for violent mobsters, which is what many Mexican drug-peddling associations surely are. But the trouble with designations like these—those based on membership in some law-enforcement designated category, like a "gang" or a "terrorist organization"—is that they tend to just escalate penalties and public sentiment against anyone possessing drugs while Latino, or part of whatever the demonized identity du jour is. It encourages "criminal justice" that runs on guilt by association. It gives drug warriors an excuse to keep up their hardline tactics under the guise of fighting a new threat. And it provides cover to all sorts of bullshit prohibitionist policies and anti-immigration crusades, as well.

Republicans in Congress have introduced a bill similar to what Trump is proposing. The measure would make it so not just those deemed cartel members would be included but anyone who assisted anyone accused of cartel membership.

So it's the war on terror, war on drugs, and war on immigration all rolled into one! I'm sure if they put their minds to it, they can wrap "sex traffickers" and "satanists" and Russian bots in there, too.

JUSTICE REFORM

No more capital punishment in California. Per an executive order from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the state will suspend all death penalty sentences going forward and grant reprieves to the 737 prisoners currently facing execution.

"I do not believe that a civilized society can claim to be a leader in the world as long as its government continues to sanction the premeditated and discriminatory execution of its people," said Newsom in a statement. "The death penalty is inconsistent with our bedrock values and strikes at the very heart of what it means to be a Californian."

FOLLOWUP

Things are "about to get real interesting," Stormy Daniels told an audience at The Wing co-working space in Washington on Tuesday. Daniels has parted ways with showboating attorney Michael Avenatti after a federal judge dismissed her lawsuit seeking to void a non-disclosure agreement she signed regarding the money paid to her by Michael Cohen on Trump's behalf. Her new lawyer is Clark Brewster.

An earlier suit against Trump for defamation was dismissed last fall. Since then, however, "it's been proven that I didn't lie," said Daniels, referring to revelations made by Cohen in his congressional testimony this year. "I think we're gonna try that one again."

Daniels also said she was proud of Cohen for his recent testimony. "He's tired of being bullied. He's tired of being called a liar and called a rat and, whatever, you know. Part of me was, like, 'Wow, he sounds really sincere.' I'm so proud of him for doing the right thing."

As for Avenatti—who tweeted Tuesday that he had terminated their business relationship—Daniels said she had been seeking a new lawyer already and he was just trying to get ahead of that. Their goals were not really aligned to begin with, Daniels explained. She wanted the non-disclosure agreement invalidated so she didn't have to pay a massive $20 million fine for breaking it. But for Avenatti, it was all about finding a way to bring down the president. "That was his agenda," she said.

QUICK HITS

• Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) wants to make things easier for third-party candidates.

• American Civil Liberties Union lawyers say a man's suit to punish his former girlfriend for having an abortion will not get far.

Boing Boing warns about the "rise of the surveillance scooters."

• Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is pushing a troubling bill that's purportedly about campaign finance reform but actually threatens free political speech.

• How America is making the drug war worse in Southeast Asia.

Photo Credit: AdMedia/Newscom

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...President Donald Trump said his administration was "seriously" considering designating drug dealers "as terrorist organizations."

    The watering down of terms continues.

  • Rich||

    Well, at least he didn't say "exponentially seriously".

  • Don't look at me!||

    "Super cereal !"

  • ||

    Hello.

    I was holding out hope that established Democrats like Pelosi were gonna come to their senses given the antics of AOC and Omar.

    I naively wanted to believe they understood the danger posed by far leftists to America and would hold their noses, purge the ranks of it and temporarily align with the GOP.

    But hey. I'm Canadian so what do I know?

  • Ordinary Person||

    You know nothing, Rufus Snow.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I'll bet you know who makes the best poutine.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    What is a toque is?

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    How to drink milk out of a bag?

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    What ketchup chips taste like?

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    I bet you know how to make a flannel tuggie for a moose.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    Absolute lust for Kraft Dinner?

  • ||

    That's enough. Play time is over. Go take your naps.

  • Zeb||

    Moose cock.

  • Dillinger||

    do you know the Mackenzie brothers? that would be awesome.

  • loveconstitution1789||

  • Agammamon||

    Have you not seen Pelosi come out and publicly state that 'impeachment is off the table' now? Or her poo-pooing the 'Green New Deal'? She's in a fight for her life right now - the claws have come out and she's trying to reign in the insane-wing of her party without destroying any chance of getting a viable Presidential candidate or, worse, losing the House and Senate again.

  • Nardz||

    Yea, posting videos of beheadings, leaving bodies of people burned to death to be found, and slaughtering entire parties of people in order to send a message and influence decision making on both an individual and political level is totally different than terrorism.

  • wreckinball||

    Totally because you are being racist or something. Stop the hate!

    Quit expressing your racist reality

  • Zeb||

    Yes, it's probably fair to say that the cartels use some terrorist tactics. Whether that makes them terrorist organizations is another question.
    But what is the purpose of the president declaring them terrorists? Seems to me like another excuse to militarize the border, which I don't think is a good idea or the answer to the problem. Legalizing drugs is the answer to the problem, but that's not happening with harder drugs. So we're stuck with drug cartels. The question has to be what to do to make them less violent and terroristic. Stepping up the intensity of enforcement against drug cartels seems to encourage more violence, not less, as we've seen in the past decade or so.

  • BYODB||

    Just ask Al Capone about the benefits of prohibition!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Ask the Kennedy Family too.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    At this point it seems we would call organized crime terrorism.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why not. Under Obama, extra-judicial killing of 'terrorists' included an American and his son.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    What makes someone selling drugs into a terrorist?

    Who hasn't gotten paranoid after smoking that odd joint? Everyone and everything is out to get you. It can be sheer terror!

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Who knew marijuana was a gateway to terrorism?

  • DesigNate||

    Early 2000's PSA's?

  • Idaho Bob||

    Next, drug users will be prosecuted the same as johns. The charges will be something like "aiding terrorist orgs" or "participating in drug trafficking".

    Just wait.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Murdering law enforcement and other government officials who oppose them?

    It may be a category error to call them terrorists under most understandings of the word, but the cartels are doing a bit more than just selling drugs and framing it that way is disingenuous.

  • Nardz||

    C'mon Mickey.
    Public massacres and murder of hundreds of people running for office isn't terrorism at all.
    Neither is posting videos of torture with explicit instructions of how the public should react and the lessons cartels want the public to take from them.
    Not terrorism!

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    I'd say the difference is motivation. The actions are essentially equivalent, but the motivation isn't ideological, and hence fighting it is easier because actually policy changes can actually help were they not too stupid to end the fucking drug war.

  • Obama ate a dog||

    They're doing things to intentionally make people fear them.

  • Nardz||

    The basis for the motivation may* be different, but the motivation or goal is the same - use the public spectacle of brutal violence to inflict fear and influence policy.
    Terrorism, like any other political tool from protest to think tanking, is aimed at affecting policy.
    It may be global (destruction of two towers representing the great satan's corrupt morals and western hegemony to rally Islamist ambition worldwide) or local (executing a newly elected mayor, who has promised to crack down on drug business, at his rally).

    *the motivation may be different only superficially - prophet vs profit - but fundamentally, the motivation is to increase power and influence while decreasing the same for opposition.

  • Zeb||

    I don't think the intent is so much to change policy as to maintain power and instill fear so they can continue to ignore policy or work with the corrupt governments in Mexico and other countries.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I think the word we are looking for is racketeering, not terrorism.

  • Cyto||

    Depends on who we are talking about...

    In areas of northern Mexico and parts of Central America and northern South America there are regions that are controlled by drug warlords who rule using fear of extreme violence (like killing people and hanging the bodies up for public display).

    While not precisely the use of terror for political objectives, it is pretty darned close.

  • Nardz||

    It's fundamentally the same - the difference is in scope, or the extent/distance of desired effect

  • Shakes||

    It might be strategically similar, but they are not fundamentally the same. Cartels are businesses with no access to legal contract enforcement.

  • Azathoth!!||

    In areas of northern Mexico and parts of Central America and northern South America there are regions that are controlled by drug warlords who rule using fear of extreme violence (like killing people and hanging the bodies up for public display).

    This IS --precisely-- using terror for political objectives.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Definition of terrorism below.

    If the Cartels use violence for political aims, they are committing terrorism.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...purportedly about campaign finance reform but actually threatens free political speech.

    You repeat yourself.

  • Rich||

    Mangu-Ward's Law: All legal provisions created in the name of national security will eventually be used to prosecute the war on drugs

    ENB's Law: All legal provisions created in the name of national security will eventually be used to prosecute the war on human trafficking

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Crusty's Law: All legal provisions created in the name of protecting our innocent teenage boys against their horny female teachers will be futile.

  • Obama ate a dog||

    The universe's lae: Chipper Morning Wood is garbage.

  • Cyto||

    All this ad-homenim troll war stuff is tiresome.

  • Obama ate a dog||

    So exercise some agency chief.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "We're thinking about doing it very seriously," the it being a designation that "Mexican drug cartels" are terrorist groups.

    The terror group you could bring to its knees by an end to your own prohibition.

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    Ding ding ding!

  • Cyto||

    Oh, sure. Egg him on...

    But end prohibition and who's gonna fund all those cool military outfits for local police departments, huh? Didn't think of that one, did you? And what about all that sweet, sweet asset forfeiture?

    Oh yeah, you can talk about ending prohibition all you want, but does anyone ever think about the consequences? I mean, what about all the extra prison workers? What are they gonna do? And the million or so extra police we need to round up all the pot smokers.. What are they gonna do?

    Yeah.... great plan, buddy....

  • Azathoth!!||

    The terror group you could bring to its knees by an end to your own prohibition.

    Yes! Because all drugs are legal everywhere else in the world except the US!

  • Conchfritters||

    The measure would make it so not just those deemed cartel members would be included but anyone who assisted anyone accused of cartel membership.

    Well, we already call consenting people who transact money for sex "sex traffickers", so I can see how it might be easier to call all Mexican gangs "terrorists". Gangs, mob, terrorists... it's just too confusing for simple minds to understand.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Has Stormy Daniels paid the $300,000 in legal fees the judge ordered her to pay to Trump?

    Will she give back the $130,000 now that NDA has been invalidated?

    So far, she's lost at least $300,000 in these lawsuits, plus whatever she's paying her own lawyers, and she may have to pay that $130,000 back. If she was seeking to invalidate the NDA, why wouldn't she pay the money back?

    A couple more wins like that, and she may have to go back on tour again to cover her losses.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    she may have to go back on tour again to cover her losses

    By uncovering her assets.

  • Ray McKigney||

    I don't think she's the one paying the bills.

  • Cyto||

    Which is why the "business relationship" had to end.

    The donors that were funding this nonsense have realized that it is time to cut their losses, so these two nitwits are on their own.

    Politics really makes for some upside-down thinking. This case started with a (successful) blackmail attempt. Nobody seemed interested in pursuing the blackmail case against her when this came to light. Then it progressed because she sussed out that she could get more money than she got for the blackmail if she went with the other team, so she pulled out of the NDA..... Which, c'mon... you trusted a blackmailer to keep their mouth shut after you paid them once?

    The same bunch of donors must be behind a lot of this nonsense, because the same set of attorneys keeps showing up. Yet for some reason we don't have anyone in the press who finds it at least a little curious that people living on opposite ends of the country, ostensibly with "no agenda of their own" keep coming forward with the same attorneys to muckrake on behalf of the DNC machine. Nope... they all just take it at face value. Nothing to see here, movin' on..

  • Ordinary Person||

    She did deliver Trump's attorney to the SDNY on a silver platter which is priceless.

  • Sevo||

    Keep grasping those straws, OP.
    Wha'd they get him on, an unpaid parking ticket?

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    Yes, Cohen was arrested for an unpaid parking ticket.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, gee, sorry. Maybe it was littering?
    Buzz off.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    Oh, Grandpa.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, shitbag.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    I watched a little Fox News yesterday. I gotta say, the ads cracked me up. Does anyone under 60 watch that channel?

  • Obama ate a dog||

    You're not under 60? You just said you watched it.

  • Sevo||

    Looks like yuo and Tony do, but I have no idea; never watch TV 'news' at all.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I didn't realize anybody cared.

    Priceless to whom?

  • Ordinary Person||

    There you go projecting.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Who's it priceless to?

  • DesigNate||

    He totally wasn't lying this time!

  • wreckinball||

    She better get a stripping

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Still think it's inappropriate to compare Drumpf's America to Nazi Germany?

    A white child called three black classmates a racial slur. Months later, the school is struggling to move forward.

    Absolutely despicable. It will probably take years for the school to recover from this unspeakable tragedy.

    But that's life under Orange Hitler. Hate incidents are at an all-time high because he has emboldened the most bigoted members of society.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Kids say the darndest things.

  • Rich||

    The student stated "and I don't care if I'm racist" after invoking the slur. The incident was reported to administrators, and the parents of the child who used the epithet were notified, but the student was not immediately disciplined [and] the parents of the three black students were not immediately notified

    I feel ... faint ....

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Libertymike's kid?

  • Idaho Bob||

    "On Oct. 16, a white fifth-grader at Key Elementary used a racial slur against three classmates when he became upset during a football game at recess, according to the school system's investigation of the incident, which was obtained by The Post. School officials confirmed the authenticity of the report."

    Wait....elementary aged kids were playing football?!?! At a public school?!?!

  • Cyto||

    That is actually a good article. A nice read on where we are today.

    The parents (and community leaders, and the press, apparently) are upset that there wasn't more discipline sooner and that the parents of the "victims" were not called immediately..

    Because some kid called some other kids a name.

    So now the standard is that the school should notify the parents every time some other kid calls their kid a name.

    OK Mom, let me give you a clue. If your own kid didn't think it was worth mentioning, it probably wasn't a big deal.

  • Cyto||

    Full disclosure: My son currently attends a magnet program at a majority black middle school, so he's in the same position as these kids. Getting called a racial slur isn't something the school notifies us about. It usually isn't something the kids think worthy of mentioning, unless it is in the context of some specific kid who is harassing them. But if the school were to start notifying parents every time their kid was called an offensive name.... well, I doubt we'd ever make it to lunch before they had to call.

    Can we please get back to treating kids like... you know... kids? You don't have to call in a federal task force every time children do childish things.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Since then, however, "it's been proven that I didn't lie," said Daniels, referring to revelations made by Cohen in his congressional testimony this year. "I think we're gonna try that one again."

    Maybe Avenatti wasn't the problem after all.

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    "Daniels also said she was proud of Cohen for his recent testimony. "He's tired of being bullied. He's tired of being called a liar and called a rat and, whatever, you know. Part of me was, like, 'Wow, he sounds really sincere.' I'm so proud of him for doing the right thing.""

    So are Reason feminists going to keep this political theater alive because it involves a prostitute? Or am I missing the connection between this and anything of any importance whatsoever?

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    How about we get an update on the Epstein scandal?

    How about we talk about Loretta Lynch lying to congress?

    How about Media Matters continuing to attack a private citizen? You girl Molly finds that entertaining

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    lol

  • Ken Shultz||

    During the 2016 campaign, they covered a porn star who made bukkake and gang bang flicks because she sued Trump for sexual assault because he supposedly kissed her on the cheek without asking.

    They covered Nastya Rybka's accusations--and a less credible witness to anything I can hardly imagine!

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    You got a problem with bukkake?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Kinda gross if you ask me. Certainly demeaning.

    At any rate, it speaks to a claim for damages for being kissed on the cheek--not to mention the claim popping up two weeks ahead of an election and driven by Gloria Allred.

    Oh, and it speaks to the claim of this porn star specifically.

    "Drake accused the Republican presidential nominee of "uncontrollable misogyny, entitlement, and being a sexual assault apologist"

    http://reason.com/blog/2016/10.....st#comment

    If she made gang bang and bukkake videos and then turned around and accused Trump of uncontrolled misogyny and being a sexual assault apologist, then, yeah, I think that speaks to her credibility.

    That whole piece was pretty shitty.

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    All prostitutes are well-rounded freedom fighters who must be believed!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Laws should not advantage particular political parties or discriminate against candidates who choose not to affiliate with a party. The Ballot Fairness Act (#HR1681) helps equalize the treatment of candidates so elections will be fairer and voters will have more options. pic.twitter.com/XrlvRwp3mb
    — Justin Amash (@justinamash) March 12, 2019

    He's running.

  • Conchfritters||

    I'd vote for him - the libertarian bench is looking a little thin with Weld gone (again), Gary's not running (yet), Petersen came in like 4th place in Missouri, a State that loves drugs, and McAfee is in some boat moored off a Venezuelan island somewhere.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    He's running.

    I can't wait to pick apart his libertarian beliefs.

  • Bubba Jones||

    He'd get more press as a Republican candidate and have a greater shot of winning.

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    Like Rand, right?

  • Conchfritters||

    "I do not believe that a civilized society can claim to be a leader in the world as long as its government continues to sanction the premeditated and discriminatory execution of its people"

    Right decision for the wrong reason. The death penalty should be abolished because sometimes they execute the wrong person.

  • Sevo||

    It's Newsom; to be expected.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Poorly phrased, hyperbolic, and inflammatory?

  • DRM||

    And racist. Apparently the Japanese either are uncivilized or unable to claim to be a leader in the world. Or both.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    American Civil Liberties Union lawyers say a man's suit to punish his former girlfriend for having an abortion will not get far.

    Not with that attitude.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Will they say it was an


    aborted attempt?

  • Cyto||

    No, no, no!!!

    You screwed up the meme! You gotta put a "-dons sunglasses" in that pause. This is the internet. We have strictly enforced cultural norms 'round these parts!

  • Mickey Rat||

    Under the rationale abortion is primarily justified under. With the exception of reproductive equality, of course. A man's choice in the matter ends with the decision to have sex.

  • Conchfritters||

    But for Avenatti, it was all about finding a way to bring down the president. "That was his agenda," she said.

    What a dip shit. Owes money all over town.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Boing Boing warns about the "rise of the surveillance scooters."

    Elijah Wood found out the hard way.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    What makes someone selling drugs into a terrorist?

    The violence that comes with it. Granted, that's prohibition related, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist. Turf war related gun fights aren't victimless crimes.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Plus the importation of poisons across the border.

  • Ordinary Person||

    Killing for money isn't terrorism. It's more like nationalism.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Jfc, Longtorso.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    You cannot ignore the violence just because libertarians and conservatives disagree on the cause. Not everyone agrees with us.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    This designation is a step in the wrong direction, and you know it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    End drug laws peacefully in the USA and fight the growing violence of Cartels?

    Yeah, wrong step.

    Chipper wants the USA to implode as Constitutional Democratic Republic.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The thing that makes someone selling drugs into a terrorist is the laws we've put on the books that give special exceptions to the president and law enforcement in dealing with terrorists.

    Ever hear the old saying about how when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail? We gave them the Constitution to fight drug dealers, but we gave them a sledge hammer to fight terrorists.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    We? I wasn't part of that.

  • Obama ate a dog||

    Sadly fuckboy, you are whether you like it or not. One more thing you din't understand because you're not a libertarian.

  • Ken Shultz||

    We? I wasn't part of that.

    So, you're not an American?

  • 0x1000||

    Ahh, there's that good old collectivism I come to Reason for. Government is just the laws we put on the books together!

  • Obama ate a dog||

    Like it or not it's true. Having another tantrum won't change it.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Ahh, there's that good old collectivism I come to Reason for. Government is just the laws we put on the books together!

    It's not 'collectivism'. You don't HAVE to play.

    But you can choose to.

  • Jerryskids||

    You are doing violence to the English language, so congratulations, you're now a terrorist.

    "No one wants to stick up for violent mobsters, which is what many Mexican drug-peddling associations surely are." Did you miss that line? Being a violent criminal does not make one a terrorist, it's using violence to effect political change that makes one a terrorist. (Or a freedom fighter, depending on which side you're on.) You can't just decide that words mean whatever you want them to mean, you igneous asymptotic rumination.

  • DesigNate||

    No, committing acts of terrorism makes one a terrorist.

    You know, like assassinating law enforcement and politicians in your country in order to foment fear and terrorize the citizenry into obedience.

    That's not to say that all drug dealers are terrorist. But it is willfully disingenuous to pretend that the cartels don't operate that differently then the Taliban or Al Queda or the IRA.

  • BYODB||

    This may shock some retards, but terrorist organizations sell drugs too.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Dare I say that most terrorist organizations sold drugs at some point to earn cash to buy Arms?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Some, if not all of these Cartels, are not simply killing for money via drug sales.

    These Cartels are committing violence and terrors campaigns to create a political environment to make it easier to protect their drug sales, murder sprees, and assets.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Here's my read of the Nancy Pelosi revelation that she opposes impeaching President Trump split into two points: 1) what this tells us about the charges that have already been made public, and 2) what this probably tells us about what's in Mueller's report.

    1) The charges that have been made public are insufficient to justify an impeachment.

    Despite what TDS journalists and silly people think, there isn't anything substantive enough to justify impeaching the president over that's already been made public. You've been running around in circles desperately chasing your own tails for two years now--always sure that you're just about to catch it. Somehow, that morphed into the idea that if you spent two whole years chasing your tail, it must mean that you caught it. You didn't--not evidence sufficient to impeach a president.

    2) Pelosi is setting herself up against the screaming junior members of her party, who might unseat her from the Speaker's chair because she opposes impeaching Trump. My read is that she probably wouldn't have stuck her neck out ahead of Mueller's report if she didn't already have an idea of what's in the report. Imagine what would happen to Pelosi is there were something substantial in Mueller's report to come out now--after Pelosi has said she opposes impeachment. She probably wouldn't stick her neck out like that unless she knew that there wasn't anything new and substantive in Mueller's report.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Morals (3) of the story:

    1) If the Democrats win the White House, it may only be because they don't impeach Trump--because surviving an impeachment by the swamp over nothing will make him even stronger in 2020.

    2) Everything you think you know that's smart and already public knowledge about why Trump should be impeached makes you sound like a Birther to other people.

    3) There probably isn't anything new and substantive in Mueller's report.

  • Ordinary Person||

    Trump is the fucking swamp incarnate. That you can't see that blows my mind.

  • Rockabilly||

    I can see that Ordinary Person is a Deep State puppet

  • Ordinary Person||

    Jesus christ, god help you mothetfucker.

  • Obama ate a dog||

    You're trash.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    MAGA!

  • Sevo||

    "Trump is the fucking swamp incarnate. That you can't see that blows my mind."

    You don't HAVE a mind, you pathetic piece of partisan shit.
    You and that hag lost nearly three years ago; grow up and get over it.

  • Ordinary Person||

    You brought her up but I'm the one stuck on Hillary.

  • Sevo||

    "You brought her up but I'm the one stuck on Hillary."

    You mean I noticed.
    Fuck off.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Sevo, you are an embarrassment. How can you call yourself a libertarian, when you are consistently defending the most powerful politician in the world? Shame on you.

  • Obama ate a dog||

    Fuck you wood, you're a fucking prog and you know it, so save the "How can you call yourself a libertarian" bullshit.

  • Sevo||

    "Sevo, you are an embarrassment. How can you call yourself a libertarian, when you are consistently defending the most powerful politician in the world?"

    Any "defense" you find is a matter of pointing out that lefty TDS-victims are lying.

  • Griffin3||

    Ewwww.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Trump is the fucking swamp incarnate. That you can't see that blows my mind."

    So, you don't disagree with anything else I wrote?

    Interesting.

  • Ordinary Person||

    Mueller called Manafort's lying about giving the campaign data to the Russian agent "the heart of the investigation". We still have to see how that plays out. I can remember when we were arguing about whether Trump or anyone in his campaign had even made "contact" with the Russian govt. We were arguing about it because Trump was lying through his fucking teeth about it. Now the Trump line is "no collusion". And I think he's lying now just like he was lying about the contacts. From what I can tell Trump was trading on our foreign policy to enrich himself. It's not about ideology just money much like what motived Bendict Arnold's treachery.

  • Sevo||

    "...We still have to see how that plays out..."

    Yeah, they really got him this time, right? Right? just like all the other times.
    Grasp at them straws; it's all you got.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You think the evidence suggests that Donald Trump is like Benedict Arnold?!

    You've been horribly manipulated by other people--probably because of your good intentions. You really need to work on your critical thinking skills. They can make you less susceptible to that kind of manipulation.

  • Ordinary Person||

    Did Trump and/or his representatives meet with agents of the Russian govt with the intention of accepting a written offer of assistance?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Remember when Obama and/or his representatives met with agents of the Russian govt with the intention of accepting a written offer of assistance?

  • John||

    So what if he did give "campaign data" whatever the hell that means, to the Russians? That is not secret information. It is not a crime to communicate with Russian agents.

    From best I can tell, you are complete fucking moron who is fortunate to not be a danger to yourself or others.

  • Ordinary Person||

    So we arrived at "Collusion isn't a crime". Maybe it isn't. Maybe it is.

  • John||

    You don't even know what "collusion means". Whatever you think it means, giving campaign data to the Russians isn't it.

    We have arrived at "oridinary person is a moron who keeps wasting everyone's time".

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Russian collusion to undermine a presidential election could be described as someone that contracts a foreign entity to gather information from Russia to be used in a secret court for the purpose of contesting the election.

  • Sevo||

    "Russian collusion to undermine a presidential election could be described as someone that contracts a foreign entity to gather information from Russia to be used in a secret court for the purpose of contesting the election."

    So the hag is guilty of one more crime?

  • Ordinary Person||

    Secretly meeting with agents of the Russian govt and agreeing to work together to defeat a political opponent is collusion. We got that in writing. Trump was secretly pursuing a billion dollar payout from Putin during the campaign. That sounds like a motive to me.

  • Obama ate a dog||

    " We got that in writing"

    We do?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They do have that in writing.

    Hillary's campaign team met with a British spy who met with Russian spies to defeat Trump.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Hillary's campaign team met with a British spy who met with Russian spies to defeat Trump.""

    Depends on how you mean defeat Trump. Steele claimed the purpose of the dossier was to contest the election. Usually defeat means at the polls on election day. Not post election after the states' AGs have certified the vote.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Democrats thought that they would control the House and have Pelosi as Speaker.

    Trump is impeached and removed based on the coup by the Deep state. Pence would be impeached as some co-conspirator.

    Poof! Pelosi is President. Pelosi picks Hillary as her VP.

    This was Plan B. Plan A was Hillary winning the election.

  • Cyto||

    Secretly meeting with agents of the Russian govt and agreeing to work together to defeat a political opponent is collusion. We got that in writing. Trump was secretly pursuing a billion dollar payout from Putin during the campaign. That sounds like a motive to me.

    So.... working with agents of the Russian government to defeat a political opponent is collusion.

    And you'd like it in writing.

    Well.... Here ya go. The FBI under Obama paid for "opposition research" on Trump from the Russian government. This comes from a reliable source, in writing. It comes directly from the FBI.

    Oh... you wanted a political person. Like, a candidate for president, or a national political party? This we also have in writing. We have bank records and everything.

  • Cyto||

    And they didn't just take the phone call. They literally cut checks. Millions of dollars. They didn't just say they'd love it if someone had dirt on their opponent... they actually paid the Russians (via intermediaries) for dirt on their opponents, which they then shopped around to the media and politicians everywhere.

    We know this happened because... wait for it... we have it in writing. They all wrote about it and told us what happened.

    We even know that the Obama administration used this information to get wire taps on Trump campaign officials and then illegally distributed classified wiretap information around the government for the explicit purpose of undermining the incoming president elect. We know this because .... again... we have it in writing! They bragged about it to the New York Times right after the inauguration.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Sadly, people claiming to be against Russian collusion really only care about Trump. Not Russian collusion. Else they would be appalled at what Hillary's camp did.

    If Hillary won, Russian collusion wouldn't be a topic worth of discussion despite her own collusion.

    Candidates use all kinds of money for the purpose of influencing the voter to cast the vote for them. Bill Clinton did it with Chinese dollars. I find that a little dirty but politics as usual. Now using similar information in a secret court for the purpose of contesting the election is a whole new ball game.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    While answering a question from MSNBC's Katy Tur about why he is confident that President Trump will stand up to Russia, Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL) referred to President Obama "leaning over to Putin and saying he'd have more flexibility to give you what you want after the re-election."

    "I'm sorry, I don't know what you're referring to," the host said.

    Rep. Rooney explained: "Remember when he leaned over at a panel discussion or a meeting, and he said 'I'll have more flexibility' after the election. No one really ever pushed the president on what he meant like that, but I can only imagine for a thug like Putin, that it would embolden him."

    The host repeated the guest's name and ended the segment.

    At a nuclear disarmament summit in Seoul in March 2012, President Obama was caught on a hot mic talking to Russian President (at the time) Dimitri Medvedev. "This is my last election," Obama said. "After my election I have more flexibility."

    "I understand," Medvedev is recorded replying. "I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

  • Sevo||

    "So we arrived at "Collusion isn't a crime"."

    Not at all. We've arrived at "you don't know WIH you're posting about".

  • Cthulunotmyfriend||

    It is interesting that often our disgust over-rides our reason, at least I notice that failure in myself. Call that point (4). As I always say on this board, I don't even dislike half of Trump's policies, I just hate him as a person. I agree that there will probably be nothing new coming in all these reports, and that impeachment would be a bad move for democrats, your point (1). It's just that, Trump admitted on TV why he fired Comy, oh that's point (3). I am still pissed about the whole birther conspiracy he helped launch in 2012, oh that's (2). I am also pissed at his attempt to sell the conspiracy that Obama literally started Isis in 2016, before realizing even he couldn't sell that to his nutty followers, call that (2.5). Politicians are all weasels, and Trump is no different. I just can't believe that he has cult like followers; I've seen cults before and know I'll see more in the future, so it is peculiar that the cult of worshipping Bif from Back to the Future annoys me so.

  • Obama ate a dog||

    But Hillary started the birther thing. You literally hate him because you're stupid.

  • John||

    I am still pissed about the whole birther conspiracy he helped launch in 2012, oh that's

    The birther conspiracy was launched by Hillary in 2008. Maybe you didn't realize that. So, that should solve that issue.

    I am also pissed at his attempt to sell the conspiracy that Obama literally started Isis in 2016,

    I don't recall Trump ever claiming any such thing. Obama called ISIS JV and ignored them allowing them to take over half or Iraq and Syria. That isn't Trump's fault.

    As the poster says above, you hate him because you are an idiot.

  • Cyto||

    Well, I have a distinct dislike for Trump (the person) based on him presenting himself as a complete moron.

    And I'm not a Trump voter (wasted that sucker on our candidate who couldn't even pick a running mate that would endorse him over the Democrat)

    And I am not interested in any of those issues - real or imagined. More significantly, I'm not terribly interested in him calling out the media as "the enemy of the people" either. He didn't move to nationalize the press, so chill folks. Plus, ya lay down with dogs...

    Nor am I interested in any of their imagined insults, slights, dog whistles or conspiracies.

    He's just not terribly likeable. He is pretty funny though, and that can be entertaining.

    And I'm not an idiot. (even though I voted for the LP candidate)

  • DesigNate||

    Run doggy, you'll catch that tail eventually!

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Trump is the fucking swamp incarnate. That you can't see that blows my mind.

    Why does that blow your mind? Trump is a Republican, and so must be defended at all costs. Tribal allegiance above all. Even though he was a life-long Democrat before running. If Pelosi declared she is becoming a Republican today, Ken would rush to her defense and write long essays on why she is amazing.

  • Nardz||

    "would rush to her defense and write long essays on why she is amazing."

    Like Reason did?

    You, and others, accuse people of being partisan because you're partisan and reflexively progressive.
    You're anti-R, and regard anything that isn't criticizing Rs or "both sides"ing an issue as partisan because you're own perspective, whether you know/admit it or not, is partisan.
    But you do you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Weld is a Republican and I don't remember any commenter on here defending that guy. Reason defends Weld.

  • DesigNate||

    That is epically fucking stupid, seeing as how Ken has defended Democrats on these boards before.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties like Ordinary Person have no hair left after getting their hair blown back every day.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The other issue is while they could impeach Trump, they cannot remove him, as that requires the Senate. I imagine Pelosi thinks that will rile up GOP voters enough that she might lose the Speakership again in 2020.

  • Ordinary Person||

    That's my calculation as well. Why send the investigation into the hands of a Republican Senate when you can do the same thing in a Democratic House?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Jeremy Corbyn Aide Wrote Hitler Was 'Uniquely Excoriated Because His Victims Were Almost All White Europeans'
    The British Empire was almost certainly responsible for more human deaths, albeit over a considerably longer period of time, than Hitler was.

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    Because colonialism isn't a bad word now?

  • Mickey Rat||

    So rate and deliberate policy mean nothing, then? The only thing that matters is gross numbers?

  • ||

    Stormy should be doing less yapping and more slapping.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Finland: Government Collapses Over Universal Health Care Costs, #Bernie2020 Hardest Hit
    The government of Finland collapsed Friday due to the rising cost of universal health care and the prime minister's failure to enact reforms to the system.

    Prime Minister Juha Sipila and the rest of the cabinet resigned after the governing coalition failed to pass reforms in parliament to the country's regional government and health services, the Wall Street Journal reports. Finland faces an aging population, with around 26 percent of its citizens expected to be over 65 by the year 2030, an increase of 5 percent from today.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Shocking, totally shocking.

  • Ken Shultz||

    How bad is it in Venezuela?

    In broiling Maracaibo, looters ransacked a pasta plant and a Pepsi bottler, even taking parts from the company's delivery trucks. The head of the local business chamber, Franco Canfocelli, also said 11 supermarkets, eight bakeries, a milk plant, a chicken processor and other businesses had been looted since Sunday night. Juan Carlos Koch, the general manager of the Sambil shopping center, said 105 of 270 businesses in the mall had been overrun.

    "The mall provided the community with water, ice and electricity and, even with that, we were looted," he said.

    The scene was repeated over 40 hours as people desperate for food and anything to drink targeted stores on the usually bustling La Limpia Avenue and other sectors of Maracaibo . . . .

    Jesús Martínez said he and his family couldn't take anymore after the little food he had in his refrigerator rotted during the blackout. So when they saw that food was being lifted from stores, they, too, joined in, he said. He acknowledged taking plantains and juice, while his wife took some pork and charcoal.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/de.....552424854?

    It's a food and water riot!

    With no electricity to pump water for weeks, I'd expect to seem health problems emerge. Cholera is probably breaking out somewhere. The poor and minorities will be hit the hardest.

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    Sean Penn hardest hit.

  • Cyto||

    They have already rationalized this away.

    It is all the United States fault.

    No, that's not a joke. The Fifth Column did an extensive interview on that exact topic.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The left is frantically trying to spin this is "the rich" not deserving their $$, instead of the truth - the entire leftist enterprise ("We have the right paper from the right institutions, so we have an absolute right to rule over the uneducated cattle") - is founded on bullshit:

    College Admissions Scandal: Actresses, Business Leaders and Other Wealthy Parents Charged
    A teenage girl who did not play soccer magically became a star soccer recruit at Yale. Cost to her parents: $1.2 million.

    A high school boy eager to enroll at the University of Southern California was falsely deemed to have a learning disability so he could take his standardized test with a complicit proctor who would make sure he got the right score. Cost to his parents: at least $50,000.

    A student with no experience rowing won a spot on the U.S.C. crew team after a photograph of another person in a boat was submitted as evidence of her prowess. Her parents wired $200,000 into a special account.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Some are more equal than others.
    The rev calls them "your betters".

  • John||

    The irony is that Loughlin's dopey party girl daughter didn't even want to go to college much less USC. Her parents just forced her to go and committed a felony getting her in because they couldn't bear to face their friends if their daughter didn't get into a "good school" and not some nest of delporables like Arizona State. The whole thing has nothing to do with the kids and everything to do with a bunch of horrible, shallow people who have what amounts to trophy children.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    125 years ago, American elites married their kids off to Eurotrash gentry as a means of gaining status. Now they make back-door bribes to school officials and test proctors to get them into first-tier universities, without even the patina of respectability of making a simple donation to the school or financing the construction of a building.

  • Griffin3||

    Wow. I help kids cram for the SAT, and I'm lucky to get dinner paid for, no one bribing me at all! Curse this backwater rural south, filled with hardworking conservative values!

  • Lowdog||

    ASU! ASU!

    Go Devils!

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Every time someone complains to me about the rich I ask them if they have an Amazon Prime account.

    If they really hate the rich, why do they keep giving them money?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "A great example of Mangu-Ward's Law: All legal provisions created in the name of national security will eventually be used to prosecute the war on drugs"

    One of Shultz's laws states that when women are confronted with mutually exclusive alternatives, their first choice is almost invariably both.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    Especially when they are ragging, am I right?

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Ken came up with this law when a woman he used to date saw him on the street but couldn't decide which way to run, so she ran down both streets, like an electron in a double slit experiment.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    AOC accuses Wells Fargo CEO of financing the 'caging' of children at the border and questions why the bank invests in projects like the Dakota Access Pipeline

    Ocasio-Cortez followed up by asking: 'Why was the bank involved in the caging of children, and financing the caging of children to begin with?'

    Sloan appeared to be caught off guard by the question and didn't answer it directly.

    'I don't know how to answer that question because we weren't,' he said.

    'For a period of time, we were involved in financing one of the firms. We aren't anymore. I'm not familiar with the specific assertions that you're making, but we weren't directly involved in that.'

    Ocasio-Cortez responded curtly: 'Okay, so these companies run private detention facilities run by ICE, which is involved in caging children, but I'll move on.'

    AOC taking down the big banks.

  • John||

    My favorite part is when she asks him why Wells Fargo shouldn't be held liable if the pipeline in South Dakota leaks and he calmly says "because we don't own or operate the pipeline". AOC really is weaponized stupid in action.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Sloan appeared to be caught off guard by the question and didn't answer it directly.

    He wasn't "caught off guard" by it, he directly told her "we weren't" involved.

    Another example of "Who Said It: A 12-year-old girl or AOC?" at play. I'm starting to think this dimwit is actually just a practical joke at this point.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    I'm starting to think this dimwit is actually just a practical joke at this point.

    She is very similar to Trump, in that it as long as what she says makes her supporters happy and/or outraged on her behalf they are satisfied, and that makes her very dangerous.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Yeah, I've pointed out a couple of times that there's not as much difference between her and Trump as she'd like to believe.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    And she receives similar treatment, in that she is called a liar, she is made fun of for her appearance, she is called crazy, "how can anyone believe her!?!!," and she is going to continue to matter.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""and she is going to continue to matter."'

    I'm hoping so. She'll lose her next election by a landslide.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    Not in that district.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    She only received around 15,000 votes in a district with about 700,000 people. She's not as popular as social media would have you believe.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    She is popular with people that do not live in that district.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    Maybe! I guess we will find out.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Btw Crusty. I think she will get beat in the primary by another democrat. If not, she will beat the republican in the general.

  • Nardz||

    "She'll lose her next election by a landslide."

    Depends on how much she pisses off the old guard.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Depends on how much she pisses off the old guard.""

    I think she's doing a good job of it. I think the dems are playing nice because they don't want to tip their hand that they are going to stab her in the back come election time. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.

    Cortez won because her completion did not campaign. The establishment dems will not be lazy about it the next time. While she talks a lot, what has she done for her district? Help scare jobs away is it so far. She wants only jobs that meet her criteria. If none materialize, her record on jobs will help her lose the next election. She will be painted as a job killer and rightfully so.

    Establishment dems will do all kinds of shady crap to bring jobs to their district because it helps with reelection. Republicans too.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I find most people are caught off guard when someone asks them a completely nonsensical question and the rules of the forum require that they answer the question as if it was not stupid.

  • Cthulunotmyfriend||

    AOC does love hitting the straw man, but that is partially what got Trump so far, so I think it is the new normal. Truth isn't truth. Repeat your point till people have heard it enough that they assume it's true even if it makes no sense. I dislike Trump, but know I will probably dislike what comes next even more.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    omg it is like we are sharing a brain! MAYBE WE ARE TWINS?!?!?!

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    Felicity Huffman awoke to FBI agents with guns drawn at her L.A. home in college cheating raid


    When Felicity Huffman opened the door to her Los Angeles home at 6 a.m. Tuesday, she was met by FBI agents with their guns drawn, according a source familiar with the incident.

    "We are treating rich white bitches like the rest of you."

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Too bad CNN wasn't there to capture the moment.

  • ||

    Although I'm enjoying this story, that's over kill for a bribery case.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    It is overkill for most everything.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its an overkill for all arrests except the most extremely violent charges.

    In other words, all charged defendants should get an opportunity to turn themselves in with a few days. If they refuse to turn themselves in, then hunt them down.

    All defendants should still get non-excessive bail no matter what (per 8th Amendment).

  • Griffin3||

    Bullshit. I'll bet any money she didn't get thrown to the floor, kicked, and left face-down for the entire duration of the raid, after which she was left to clean up the tattered remains of her house and the congealed pools of blood around her dogs.

    Wait, no bet. "Felicity Huffman opened the door" ...

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    That's because she was a rich white bitch - if she wasn't rich that bitch would have been picking her teeth out of some agent's kneepad.

  • Jerryskids||

    Trump told Breitbart News: "We're thinking about doing it very seriously," the it being a designation that "Mexican drug cartels" are terrorist groups. "In fact, we've been thinking about it for a long time. ... As terrorists—as terrorist organizations, the answer is yes. They are."

    Trump is a very bad liar. The emphasizing of how seriously they've been thinking about this idea is a dead give-away that the idea just now popped into his head. It's as much a tell as his remarking that "many people" have told him something, a sure sign that nobody has ever said such a thing. No wonder Trump bankrupted a casino, he's got to be one of the world's worst poker players.

  • John||

    The emphasizing of how seriously they've been thinking about this idea is a dead give-away that the idea just now popped into his head.

    So if he says they have been thinking about it seriously, that means the opposite why? Because Orange man bad.

    And the feds have been claiming that the drug crime and terrorism are linked and indeed in the case of Hezbollah they are for decades. The dominant view in federal law enforcement circles is that terrorism is one part of a unified transnational crime problem.

    Jerry just post "orange man bad" and leave it at that. It would be less embarassing for you and save everyone the time of reading your longer posts that boil down to the same thing.

  • Cthulunotmyfriend||

    So you want our government expanding their reach over drug offenses, siezing more private property, and having the right to snoop on private citizens while they break the 4th ammendment because they are fighting "terrorism"? I don't sell my rights that cheaply, no matter who sits behind the big desk at the White House. I am disappointed with Orange Man on this because I had hoped he would move towards declassifying Marijuana as schedule 1 drug, now that Sessions in no longer AG. Orange man seems to be moving in the opposite direction. Bad Orange!

  • John||

    NO. I am saying that Trump is not lying when he says they are seriously considering it. Do me a favor and try to at least undertand a post before emoting about it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think they've been seriously considering it since, at least, when the district court struck down his travel ban EO--not because of the text of the ban but because of statements he made during his campaign rallies.

    Ever since then, he's been tying immigration, drugs, and terrorism together, and the travel ban was one of the first things he did.

    When the other things he does become the object of lawsuits and they go in front of the same district court that shot down his travel ban because of his public statements, they may well be compelled to consider his public statements in regards to immigration and its links with terrorism.

    The fact is that the president has more leeway when it comes to fighting terrorism than drug traffickers or immigration, and if the standard of evidence is that the president needs to show that his public statements have been consistently linking immigration and terrorism or drug trafficking and terrorism for two years, then he's got two years of public references to attest to that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    How long have people been going bananas over Trump suggesting that there might be terrorists in the caravan? The people who go bananas over these statements are some of the same people who were glad to see the travel ban shot down because of Trump's public statements during the campaign. These are the consequences of TDS. When the Constitution and the text of the EO are no longer their standard because Trump is involved, they shouldn't sit there all incredulous to find out that Trump considers his public statements to be a precedent setting standard.

  • Obama ate a dog||

    "Who needs words to have meanings?"

    You mean like "man" and "woman?" Or did you mean like "sex-worker" when you mean "whore?"

  • ||

    is that they tend to just escalate penalties and public sentiment against anyone possessing drugs while Latino

    Engage in fallacy much?

    The drug war is evil. The black market it has created massively rewards smart and industrious people for being the very worst they can possibly be while providing incredible wealth to even the stupid and lazy. The perverse incentives may be even greater for LEO than they are for the criminals. Even if the government actors don't just skim off the cash, there are the careers for their kids, the legal defense and prison industries, and political power for legislators and prosecutors who can criminalize almost any activity because "WE ARE AT WAR, BABY!".

    Drug lords who terrorize the population are terrorists. Unlike political and religious terrorists, we could kick the chair right out from underneath them by eliminating the black market. Just as the left sabotaged the last presidential election by yelling RACIST too loud and far too often, you weaken the arguments for legalization when you call out racism that is not even remotely close to being an issue.

  • chipper me timbers||

    Trump told Breitbart News: "We're thinking about doing it very seriously," the it being a designation that "Mexican drug cartels" are terrorist groups. "In fact, we've been thinking about it for a long time. ... As terrorists—as terrorist organizations, the answer is yes. They are."

    The Drug War was the worst thing that ever happened to our rights and freedoms.... until the War on Terrorism. So it makes perfect sense that they want to start redefining all their Drug War targets as War on Terrorism targets to ratchet up how much they can get away with.

    We are doomed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Slavery was not worse than the War on Drugs?

    We fought an actual Civil War partly over slavery.

  • Rossami||

    While I don't disagree with Newsom's opinion on the death penalty, I don't think that is something that the Executive Branch gets to unilaterally decide. That should be a policy decision made by the Legislature.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I think the criminal justice system in the USA is so messed up that the death penalty should be put on hold for 5-10 years. Defendants are not getting fair trials, lawyers are sandbagging defendants, and DNA has shown far too many "murders" are innocent.

    I think Newsom is making it clear that if the California Legislature does not do something quickly, he will commute all death sentences, which cannot be undone by the Courts.

    I don't normally follow Commifornia politics but I will probably follow this issue.

    I firmly believe that if you cannot follow the constitution to give defendants a fair trial, then don't even bother charging people.

  • Cyto||

    I'm of mixed minds on this. I don't think that it is a good way to run a government.

    However...

    If I were to find myself with the power of "Governor of Florida", what would I do?

    Well, I'd commute a bunch of victimless crime offenders' sentences, that's for sure.

    But what would I do when a death warrant crossed my desk? Most likely it wouldn't be a case where he didn't "deserve" it. The odds are that it would be a case where he "deserved" far worse. But would I sign it?

    Hell no.

    There's the rub, isn't it. I'd feel morally compelled to do exactly as Newsome has done. (ouch, that hurts to admit). I would have to move all death sentences to life in prison in order to live with myself.

  • Cyto||

    The moral choice... against the death penalty...

    Yet...

    If one of those animals were to have attacked my children, would I have left them to the police, given a chance? I really doubt it. My feelings on the matter are relatively clear. Which is why I often wonder why there are no real-life Charles Bronson characters running about. I suppose you don't actually feel that way when it happens to you, since almost nobody actually does "take the law into their own hands". But I definitely think I'd be more in the Ron Goldman camp than in the "forgive those who sinned against us" camp.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If I was Governor of Georgia, I would definitely pardon every prisoner there because of victimless crimes.

    I would inform the state Legislature that they need to retry every violent offender within the next 30 days, or I am pardoning them too.

    Even if they tried to impeach me, I would have enough time to pardon everyone.

    Georgian have enough guns that if any of the ex-cons tried to hurt someone again, the state would not need to try them because they would be mortally wounded.

    Georgia locks people up for failing to pay child support. We need a major revamp of our criminal justice system.

  • Azathoth!!||

    They wouldn't impeach you.

    They'd hang you. Letting violent offenders go--you'd deserve it.

  • bhull9goldenjet||

    Newsom and all the fascist/socialist/evil/leftists should fry.....round 'em up and dump them on the Farallon Islands with NOTHING! Let 'em look longingly towards their wicked mecca, San Fran-sick-o while they wither away........or perhaps some will try to test the Great White infested waters.............

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump Turns Drug Cartels Into Terror Cells
    ter·ror·ism
    /ˈterəˌrizəm/
    noun: terrorism
    the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

    If the Cartels are using violence to make money only, then its not terrorism. For all the violence that Cartels perpetrated to control Mexican, South American, and American politics then it is by definition "terrorism".

  • bhull9goldenjet||

    Sounds great to me......go ahead and roll 'em ALL into one....anyone that assists these bastards should be hung.........YESTERDAY! The left wants to go soft on them; I say hang 'em high.

  • BlueCat57||

    Too bad the folks at Reason do NOT know the definition of "terrorist", which is "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

    So, the only part of that definition that doesn't OBVIOUSLY fit the Drug Cartels is the "pursuit of political aims" part.

    Do the Drug Cartels have "political aims"? I would say, YES! They aim to control governments in America through "unlawful violence and intimidation".

    Right now American politicians along the border probably feel pretty safe. But why? Is it because they feel safe or because they have already yielded to the obvious violence and intimidation that the Drug Cartel perpetrate in Mexico with apparent immunity?

    Reason, being libertarian, probably thinks that if America just decriminalized drugs and prostitution that the Drug Cartels will just disappear because of the "free market".

    Sure, just like the rum-running gangs disappeared after Prohibition. Dream on.

  • John Thomas||

    BlueCat57 -- When was the last time you bought some moonshine whisky? - Please show where the rum-running gangs kept going after we ended the misguided alcohol prohibition.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    New York Charges Manafort With 16 Crimes. If He's Convicted, Trump Can't Pardon Him.

    The new state charges against Mr. Manafort are contained in a 16-count indictment that alleges a yearlong scheme in which he falsified business records to obtain millions of dollars in loans, Mr. Vance said in a news release after the federal sentencing.

    "No one is beyond the law in New York," he said, adding that the investigation by the prosecutors in his office had "yielded serious criminal charges for which the defendant has not been held accountable."

    Manafort should be transferred to Gitmo and then pardoned. NY would not be able to touch him when he is out of the country depending on which country he went to.

    This seems pretty political for a local NY district attorney's office.

  • John Thomas||

    Trump and the Republicans are full of it, as usual. - First, the U.S. CREATED the Mexican drug gangs by fraudulently enacting marijuana prohibition. They exist solely to serve the U.S. black-market created by that monstrous action.

    Second, the timing is very strange. - The move by America to end the counter-productive, marijuana prohibition has drastically reduced the operations of the Mexican drug gangs, and will continue to do so, as each state re-legalizes the near harmless plant. - And much more when the crumbling fraud of the federal prohibition collapses soon.

    Third, the United Nations has just made a historic leap from their prohibitionist stance and are now supporting decriminalization of ALL drugs. - This will finish the drug gangs, once and for all.

    Fourth, the other fiction about Mexico, "mass invasion" is amazing in its ability to survive against the facts. There have been more Mexicans leaving the U.S. than entering for TEN YEARS now.

    Trump, the Republicans, and the corporate Democrats are nothing but lie, upon lie, upon lie.

    If Trump tries to invent a pretext to invade Mexico like he has with Venezuela, he will find massive resistance - from outside the U.S. and within! It would be enough to finally get him canned.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    The FBI definition of a terrorist organization is one that uses deadly force to further the change of social and political norms. Some dealers are nice, but if your local drug dean keeps people from snitching on them by killing people to drop a hint, it is a terrorist organization.

    This week, I brought my friend in Brooklyn to a licensed medical marijuana facility to speak to the proprietor there. After we left, my friend said, "Wow, that was the nicest drug dealer I've ever spoken to."

  • John Thomas||

    Terrorism is just a word that can be applied to almost every government. - The U.S. is conducting terrorism with its military in at least 8 different countries. - It has conducted terrorism against millions of its own citizens for 80 years with the fraudulently-enacted, marijuana prohibition.

    The point is, there will soon be almost no Mexican drug gangs. And it will have nothing to do with Trump. - The United Nations has just made a historic leap from its traditional prohibitionist stand and is now calling for legalization of ALL drugs! - No illegal drugs. - No drug gangs.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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