Prominent Conservative Legal Scholar Steve Calabresi Calls for Trump's Impeachment

The reason is Trump's recent tweet calling for postponement of the election.


In a recent New York Times op ed, prominent conservative legal scholar and Federalist Society co-founder Steve Calabresi called for Donald Trump to be impeached and removed from office, due to his recent tweet advocating postponement of the 2020 presidential election:

I have voted Republican in every presidential election since 1980, including voting for Donald Trump in 2016. I wrote op-eds and a law review article protesting what I believe was an unconstitutional investigation by Robert Mueller. I also wrote an op-ed opposing President Trump's impeachment.

But I am frankly appalled by the president's recent tweet seeking to postpone the November election. Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats' assertion that President Trump is a fascist. But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president's immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate.

First, I am happy to welcome Steve to the club of conservative and libertarian legal scholars who believe Trump deserves to be impeached and removed from office—a group that already includes several Volokh Conspiracy bloggers, such as Jonathan Adler, David Post, and myself.

I agree with Steve that the tweet is deeply troubling, and that the president has no authority to postpone the election. The latter is the virtual consensus view of constitutional law specialists. Co-blogger Michael Abramowicz has a good explanation of why.

At the same time, the tweet strikes me as a far less compelling justification for impeachment and removal than numerous previous actions by Trump. The Ukraine scandal (for which Trump was actually impeached, though eventually acquitted by the Senate) involved a serious attempt to usurp Congressional power, and a violation of federal criminal law. Trump's brutal family separation policy was both illegal and inflicted severe harm on thousands of innocent children and their families. More recently, Trump's deployment of DHS forces to Portland and elsewhere is both a violation of constitutional limits on federal power, and undermines civil liberties by using CBP units known for their brutality and disdain for due process, which has predictably resulted in serious violations of constitutional rights.

The tweet on postponing the election isn't even Trump's most reprehensible statement about the 2020 election itself. That dubious distinction goes to his earlier threat to illegally withhold federal funds from states that expand voting by mail. Unlike the postponement Tweet, that one actually threatened action. And the threat was made more credible by this administration's ongoing pattern of attempting to usurp Congress' spending power in order to coerce state and local governments into doing the president's bidding. That  pattern is most evident in the administration's campaign against sanctuary cities, which has been repeatedly ruled illegal by numerous federal court decisions.

All of these actions are more of a threat to the constitutional order than the postponement tweet. Several have already resulted in grave violations of the Constitution, and severe harm to innocent people. In my view (like that of most constitutional law scholars), impeachment is justified even in some cases where the president has abused his power without violating the law, and perhaps also in cases (like this one) where he has merely implicitly threatened to do so. But the case for impeachment is much stronger when the president has in fact violated the Constitution (as in the Ukraine scandal, or has taken actions that inflict serious harm on innocent people (as with the family separation policy), or both (as with family separation and the DHS abuses in Portland).

If the election tweet were an isolated occurrence, I would be inclined to say that it does not justify impeachment, as it does not by itself violate the law, harm innocent people, or pose much of a threat to the constitutional system. But the better way to view it is as part of a pattern of abuses of power and subversion of constitutional constraints on the president, which includes the actions listed above, and more besides. Seen in that light, the Tweet adds to the case for impeachment, though in my view there was already more than sufficient justification.

As a practical matter, of course, it is highly unlikely that Trump will be impeached again before the election, and even more unlikely the GOP-controlled Senate will vote to remove him. No law professor—not even one as influential and (deservedly) widely respected as Steve Calabresi is likely to change that political dynamic.

The real significance of Steve's op ed is not that it will lead to a second Trump impeachment, but that it might influence the views of other conservative lawyers and intellectuals on Trump and his policies. If Trump is defeated in November, there will be a debate on the right about how much of Trump's legacy should be retained, and how much jettisoned. Those of us who believe this administration's ultra-expansive approach to executive power should be repudiated can use all the help we can get.

For the moment, of course, Steve Calabresi's condemnation of the administration is focused on this one particular statement. But perhaps he will come to see that it is part of a broader pattern, that includes many far more troubling usurpations and abuses of power.

NEXT: No Claim Against Facebook Based on President's Social Media Executive Order

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “If Trump is defeated in November, there will be a debate on the right about how much of Trump’s legacy should be retained, and how much jettisoned. Those of us who believe this administration’s ultra-expansive approach to executive power should be repudiated can use all the help we can get.”

    Its cute when someone thinks they are important yet is not. No law professor is going to have any say in the matter.

    Especially a libertarian one.

    1. None of us individually are going to have any effect on scaling back the powers of the Presidency, though maybe in a larger context of voting in more Libertarian and Libertarian leaning politicians… Unlikely, But dare to dream.
      People loath Trump, so they want his power curtailed. I loath him, and frequently suffer from TDS. However, as a society, we do need to scale back the powers of the American President, no matter who he or she is. Republicans are going to start whining, just like the Democrats are now, when their candidate is no longer in power. I think this a good time to start really pushing this issue. If you love Trump, wait till you see what comes next; I guarantee you won’t like it.
      Ironically, people on the left who complain about Trump often miss that Trump got elected partially due to perceived overextensions of Presidential power under Obama, but they will push their candidate to do the same as past Presidents and push for more Executive authority. And then the pendulum will swing back, but higher in response, and so on, and so forth.
      The partisanship of today is heightened because of the “high stakes” election that comes every 4 years, which affects the country way more than is healthy. And in turn this pushes both parties to even more partisanship and more attempts to legitimize overextension of Presidential power. A feedback loop. How can we break out of this as a country?

      1. The current danger to this country is the unchecked power of the federal courts, not the fully constrained and mild executive power.

        1. “fully constrained and mild executive power”?

          The current danger to this country is partisan hacks who saw Obama’s executive orders as dangerous, but not Trump’s.

          1. Neither is dangerous.

        2. “unchecked power of the federal courts”

          Right on cue, a court just overturned a terrorist death sentence.

          1. Roger Stone sees your “unchecked power” and says “checkmate.”

            I am beginning to sense there is a reason you wound up in can’t-keep-up Ohio and on the wrong side of history, Bob.

          2. I’m sorry life in prison will not slake your bloodlust Bob, but if you read the decision it’s pretty hard to argue.

            1. You cannot possibly be serious.

              1. Yeah, the attempts to mitigate the pre-trial publicity were pro-forma at best.

                Do you read it differently?

                1. I think the decision was 1. Probably wrong and 2. One of the strangest opinions I’ve read on a matter of any importance. But my objection wasn’t to your thinking that the sentence should have been vacated: it was to your claim that it was “pretty hard to argue otherwise”.

                  1. it was to your claim that it was “pretty hard to argue otherwise”.

                    Binding caselaw requires the trial judge to inquire about what pretrial publicity the jurors have been exposed to. This trial judge refused to inquire about what pretrial publicity the jurors had been exposed to.

                    What possible argument could there be?

    2. If Trump is defeated in November, it will probably be by a smaller margin than either John McCain or Mitt Romney were defeated, to say nothing of the shellacking Bob Dole received. Did those defeats prompt a party purge? Not as I recall.

      1. When Trump is defeated in November, it will probably be by a bigger margin than either Dukakis or Goldwater received.

    3. That’s too bad. I used to like Prof. Calabresi. People have seriously come unglued these last few years.

      1. Yes, they have. To the point that when people smarter and more principled than them say that Trump is bad, they decide that there is something wrong with that person instead of realizing that Trump is bad.

        1. You don’t like the President. Fine. I didn’t care for Obama (and given his grossly obnoxious exploitation of a memorial service for political purposes, I still don’t). But the problem with the left is, as noted by AG Barr, they’ve gone beyond a “loyal opposition,” adopting the attitudes and tactics of a “resistance” and operating to cripple the functioning of the duly elected government by any means necessary. May I ask do you believe the President is somehow illegitimate?

          1. Assuming for the sake of argument that your/Barr’s description of the left is accurate, what does that have to do with the people on the right who think Trump is an awful president? Or at least who are condemning him under some circumstances… like Calabresi?

            My comment was specifically prompted by the significant number of people I see online who seem to consider themselves Republicans who say, “I used to think so-and-so conservative thinker was so smart… until he started saying bad things about Trump. I don’t know what happened to him.”

            1. I dismiss out of hand Calabresi’s childish overreaction and unreasonably biased characterizations. That the President. in pursing his reforms, has faced opposition from establishment right and left sides is plain and it is unfortunate that some on the right ally themselves with, and adopt the language of, the resistance left in order to further their (the establishment right’s) policy/agenda. So I ask again, do you consider the President to be illegitimate?

  2. OK, I call bullshit.
    Trump did not call for postponing the election.

    1. And even if he had, does he not have the same right to petition the various state legislatures that anyone else has?

    2. And he certainly didn’t suggest that doing so was within his own power to do.

      All he did was ask if it might be a good idea, so far as I can tell. And this idiot wants him impeached over it?

      Calabresi just beclowned himself.

      1. I agree. It’s completely legitimate for him to float the idea of delaying the election, and that is all he seemed to be doing with that tweet. Terrible idea, though. He has every right to float terrible ideas.

    3. Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” (also expressed as “troublesome priest” or “meddlesome priest“) is a quote attributed to Henry II of England preceding the death of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170. While the quote was not expressed as an order, it prompted four knights to travel from Normandy to Canterbury, where they killed Becket. The phrase is commonly used in modern-day contexts to express that a ruler’s wish may be interpreted as a command by his or her subordinates.

      Certainly there will be no postponement, as it is just another expression of Trump’s magical thinking. But just as certainly, its expression indicates Trump’s obsession with trying to destroy the integrity of and confidence in any electoral process not certain to result in his election.

      As such, it would certainly be one more piece of evidence in support of impeachment.

      1. Just because you can’t see what the President is up to, doesn’t mean he isn’t advancing towards a goal.
        Democrats…and Republicans have both wailed like banshees the election cannot be delayed because of covid. I’m guessing the Durham low yield nuclear political bomb is about to be dropped, and Dems will be demanding a delay because Biden and Rice are both identified in documents as being in attendance for the crossfire hurricane briefings. The part will demand time to place new candidates.

        1. I’ll take your action.

        2. Ah yes, the 4th-dimensional chess argument. Barr will certainly release something in October. It will be utterly convincing to those that are already utterly convinced so you, for example, will lap it up. But everyone else (which includes a majority of voters) understands that the Barr Justice Department is incapable of producing credible, well, anything.

          Any thought that Barr’s October Surprise it will have an impact beyond current true believers is just as much magical thinking as Trump’s continuing dream that COVID will just beautifully, magically, disappear, and the Churches will be packed for Easter.

          1. Durham is corrupt? Got any evidence? Or does your emotional attachments to your tribe prevent you from reading government documents?
            Obama leading the crew spying on a political campaign. If thats ok, President Trump is on the road to easy victory. Couple FISA warrants. A crew doing 702 lookups, his Undersecratary of the interior, unmasking key people…great times.

            1. Every bit of what you said above is in-universe mythology that depends on priors most of us don’t share.

              1. Yes, priors like, “I should actually accept evidence even if it makes my side look bad.”

                1. Pretty rich, coming from you.

                2. I have yet to see any evidence of wrongdoing by the Obama administration in connection with the 2016 election. This is consistent with the particularly salient fact, unexplained by proponents of the “Russia hoax/unmasking/spying” narrative, that it took no public action whatsoever with respect to any information it allegedly gleaned. What evidence am I rejecting that would change that belief?

                3. Hey, Brett, maybe you should start by accepting the evidence that Obama was born in the U.S.

            2. iowantwo : Durham is corrupt?

              He doesn’t have to be, does he? Just a few weeks ago, a federal judge harshly criticized A.G. Barr’s response to the Mueller Report, saying he “distorted” the findings of Robert Mueller. The judge had just read an unredacted copy of Mueller’s report and demanded to know why Barr eliminated some items from the public release.

              You see Durham may not be corrupt (he seems to have a good reputation) but Barr is corrupt to his very core. It’s not a question of whether Barr will distort the findings, only how much. Durham may complain about seeing his findings grossly distorted, but so did Mueller. What good did it do him?

              And what good will Durham’s protests have if something is released late-October?

      2. Except it was one suggestion in a list. There is no reasonable interpretation of it like an order. Even if it was, this would require so many approvals and actions from multiple state officials and Congresses that their actions would make it legal.

        So, even if everything worked out exactly how you feared and it came to pass, there would be no violation of the law.

        I’m sorry, but your analogy is so tortured that it falls into the category of “making stuff up”.

      3. “Certainly there will be no postponement, as it is just another expression of Trump’s magical thinking. But just as certainly, its expression indicates Trump’s obsession with trying to destroy the integrity of and confidence in any electoral process not certain to result in his election.”

        How would you describe a nearly 4 yr hoax about Russian collusion?

    4. This
      Lawyers playing loose with the facts. Not a good look.

    5. Like Mafia dons and Plantagenet kings, Trump likes to couch his admissions of power abuse, even if they aren’t plausibly deniable.

      “Will no one rid me of this turbulent election?”

      1. Did Trump use the USA intel community to basically demonize a political opponent?

        I mean, Obama’s actions are markedly worse than anything Trump has even discussed, much less did.

        1. What specific public actions do you contend Obama took to “basically demonize a political opponent”?

          1. You mean OUTSIDE of him using the intel community to claim the current President used foreign assistance to win an election in spite of, literally, zero evidence?

            1. No, I’m specifically asking about what you contend supports that Obama “us[ed] the intel community to claim the current President used foreign assistance to win an election in spite of, literally, zero evidence.”

              1. You can read up on the collusion hoax. It’s not that hard to find info on it. We know who Steele’s source was. That the FBI didn’t believe it. That Biden suggested getting Flynn with the Logan Act. That the FBI repeatedly lied to FISA courts to get warrants. And that Obama let it ALL happen. They were HIS intel group.

                If you’re sincerely ignorant on this, it was intentional on your part.

                1. So all of these are (as I said above) in-universe interpretations of what are, at worst, ambiguous facts. The problem for you, and for boosters of the narrative you espouse, is that those interpretations are highly contentious, require strained and unreasonable inferences, and are not really borne out by the results one would expect if they were true.

        2. Did Trump use the USA intel community to basically demonize a political opponent?

          Well, not the intel community so much as the foreign aid budget.

    6. EXACTLY. He merely suggested it, based on recent events. And in fact, Presidents have been suggesting things to Congress for CENTURIES.

      The freak out over the tweet is really amazing, when one isn’t affected by TDS.

      1. Lol. So Steven Calebresi is affected by TDS? Do you hear yourself?

    7. Absolutely right. A childish tantrum of an overreaction befitting any learned person let alone an academic professional. It was obvious the President was just calling attention to the grave risks of fraud and other problems inherent in a national vote by mail election. At any rate, why assume the worst possible strained and insane interpretation of the comments as the intentions of a fascist dictator? If one actually assumed the President wanted to delay the election why not at least give him the benefit of a doubt and view the comment as a call for Congress to look into the matter? Academics are at their worst when they let their political biases control.

      1. not befitting that is.

  3. Quote: “It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???”

    Musing about something — complete with three question marks — is called “fascism”.

    Dumb drama about words continues, while most of the same people shrug off (or cheer) real actions with real victims over and over and over.

    1. Presidents of both parties get struck down in court for overreaching w/o impeachment being brought up. Again, fuck off.

    2. I should add: Musing about something that could never actually occur is call “fascism”.

      And we get to listen to dishonest people pretending it might occur, even though they know it actually can’t. Because they gotta beat that partisan war drum every day to keep their vengeful, angry spirits hot.

      1. What is absolutely clear to you is that Calebresi beats a partisan war drum?

        Look, you can think he is off his rocker, but his motivation is pretty clearly not partisanship against the GOP. In other words, your cliched response to criticism of Trump has been exposed for the unthinking, reflexive defense of the indefensible that it is. When you start calling Calabresi partisan against Republicans……lol

        1. I was not specifically referring to Calabresi. There was another post with those dishonest comments. And that sort of thing is also standard news media dishonesty.

          1. Ben,

            Seriously. The post is about Calebresi and him calling Trump’s tweet fascist. You decried someone calling Trump’s tweet fascist as beating the drums of partisanship. Now you claim some other identified poster somewhere said made the fascist claim and your were complaining about that? Sure.

            And now you are talking about “those dishonest comments.” What’s dishonest? Calabresi quoted Trump and interpreted it as fascist. That’s opinion, not dishonesty. But coming from someone who just excused your original comment the way you did….you are very familiar with dishonesty.

            1. You think I’m specifically talking about someone. I say I’m not.

              I will say it again: I was not specifically saying Calebresi (whoever he is) is dishonest. Sounds like he’s just someone who made the mistake of saying something extremely dumb. We all have bad days.

              The people pretending like elections might be significantly delayed are being dishonest. Elections won’t be significantly delayed. Some of those people may be mistaken or stupid or hysterical rather than dishonest, but I think most are being intentionally dishonest.

              You may decide to continue to misunderstand if you want. I won’t attempt to correct your misunderstanding again.

    3. CBS News — no bastion of right wing thought — recently documented just how much of a clusterf*ck mailed-in ballots will be.

        1. First hit, ya lazy schmuck.

          1. So you read an article that says that a not-accurate experiment “reveals potential problems” — the problem being that if people wait until the last minute, their ballots might not arrive on time — and thought that it said that mailed in ballots will be a “clusterfuck?”

  4. “If Trump is defeated in November, there will be a debate on the right about how much of Trump’s legacy should be retained, and how much jettisoned. Those of us who believe this administration’s ultra-expansive approach to executive power should be repudiated can use all the help we can get.”

    Go fuck yourself. Get rid of the whole admin state or STFU. None of this “only Democrats get to expand government” bullshit; that is a one party state.

    1. Hah. All of the overreach and criminality just enabled them.

      Remember Portland when President AOC marches the troops to liberate Savannah.

      1. She’s free to do so.

        The 2nd Amendment generates a nice counter balance to that hoped-for tyranny on your part.

  5. Bah. Steve is a bit late fleeing the sinking ship, that’s all.

    Don was useful to the FedSoc/Leo^2’s scheme, so they supported him. He is clearly a liability now, so, “Don who?”

    It will be utterly astounding how many Republican officials and operatives will have never had any connection to the man.

    1. It will be. But we’ll remember who was principled and who only found their principles once being principled aligned with their self-interest. They are unfit for any position of power.

    2. More like jumping on the already sunken ship of impeachment, if you ask me. I find this literally incomprehensible: A mere tweet musing about whether delaying the election might be a good idea, impeachable? It’s enough to make what the Democrats did impeach Trump over almost look reasonable by comparison.

      Is he off his meds, or something?

    3. I don’t think that Trump’s tweet comes close to being grounds for impeachment. As a reality check, I went over to DemocraticUnderground, where people are reliably anti-Trump. No one there was saying that Trump’s tweet was impeachable either.

      If Steve Calabresi is trying to protect his reputation by distancing himself from Trump, he’s off to a bad start. While I welcome anyone to the anti-Trump cause, Calabresi’s anti-Trump argument is no better than his pro-Trump arguments were.

  6. The whole point of “Trumpism” is contempt for the law. Only losers obey the law. Winners cheat, and cheaters win. The people who support Trump do so because they know he is dishonest, that he will lie and cheat without scruple (because he has none to begin with), that he will wink at murder and pass out pardons to those who commit them in his name. “Funny” how many of these people are lawyers, some of them even law professors. Funny indeed.

    1. As opposed to Landslide Lyndon?

      1. WTF does that have to do with Trump?

        Is that the best your feeble brain can come up with?

    2. Obama was spying on Trump since at least May of 2016, Foriegn intelligence also was working for Obama spying on Trump and all his circle of contacts. His financials have already been torn apart.

      All that spying, and the Dems were forced to use a plant to lie about a phone call to Ukraine and launch an impeachment.

      If President Trump was breaking any laws, he would have been gone before the inauguration.

  7. The tweet that launched a thousand ships. The Never Trumpers have been beating the impeachment drum ever since he was elected knowing well he would never be convicted. Yet they still take the bait every time an off the cuff tweet appears and go off the deepend.

    What they keep forgetting is US elections have reached the point where voters base their decision not on who they want to vote for but who they want to vote against. Clinton not only had massive baggage and was a terrible candidate who wasted money in states she was sure to win and ignored states she should have been in she also had to be held up by two Secret Service agents or she would have busted her ass falling down; not to mention she had to be dragged into a van that more resembled a first response ambulance than the normal SUV candidates travel in. But at least Clinton was mostly able to speak in full sentences that were on point. Biden seems to be unable to keep on point even in set up pressers. Not a good sign for when he has to get out in the sunlight and answer questions. Hard to see how Trump does not destroy him in a debate.

    Bottom line is anyone advocating impeachment needs a reality check since conviction is a no go.

  8. LOL. Ivory tower hysteria.

    It seems that Trump is always revealing his sinister plans by publicly Tweeting them.

    Did he say he was postponing the election? No. Obviously that would take an act of Congress. When a President (or candidate) says he will lower taxes, does anyone freak out because he doesn’t have the unilateral authority to do so.

    When Trump says something, particularly in the abbreviated forum of Twitter, the Left and the effete, country-club Right always assign the worst possible interpretation to it.

    1. I think this is a very good point. Where in his Tweet did Trump say anything about having the authority to postpone the election himself? Right – nowhere. It’s pure fantasy – completely made up by the anti-Trump crowd.

      1. Bingo. They read their own biases into it.

        All Trump did was suggest it. Like Presidents suggest things that Congress should do.

        Its amazing to see.

        And I don’t like a lot of Trump tweets, but I’m not dumb enough to misread this one.

      2. Where did anyone discussing impeaching him claim they had the authority to do it?

  9. Trump tweets something wacky every other day, this barely would make it into the top 10,000 and people still act like its shocking 4 years later.

    1. …and that’s something you’re saying to defend Trump? Huh?

  10. Impeachment for a Tweet is just plain dumb. I oppose impeachment generally, but at least the reasons that Prof Somin proffers are plausible reasons to impeach, if they were true (which I don’t think they are). But calling for impeachment over a Tweet is kinda peak anti-Trump: the intelligentsia’s ostentatious virtue-signalling that turns out to be dumber than whatever Trump did in the first place that they are reacting to.

    Moreover, it should be said that raising postponing the election is *perfectly legitimate*. There have been LOTS of elections postponed throughout the country during the pandemic. I remember a gigantic controversy when Wisconsin decided to actually go ahead with their election in April rather than postpone. But now that Trump raises postponing, everybody is required to switch sides on the issue it seems. (Wisconsin now has far more new Covid confirmed cases per day than they did in April, BTW.) Now, I personally wouldn’t postpone the election, and will happily vote Biden on Nov 3. But acting like Trump is some kind of pariah for raising the possibility of doing the same that that lots and lots of jurisdictions have done over the past few months? As I say – it’s dumb.

    1. I’d also like to point out that if the election actually was delayed, an act of Congress would be required. This would make the delay legal.

      There is no way to violate the law here unless Trump tries to do it unilaterally in opposition to Congress, something that hasn’t even been mentioned.

      So people are calling for Trump to be impeached when there’s no suggestion of any lawbreaking.

  11. As long as wrongdoers from only one side of the aisle consistently fail to be held accountable, and judges across the nation disregard the rule of law and create special adverse treatment for “this president”, dont be shocked when reasonable people fail to get upset about a speculative tweet that doesnt say what you think it says.

  12. Only important question is: “Who do you want to select the next SCOTUS Justice? Trump or Schumer?”

  13. Hoo. That’s a lot of profound Trump derangement syndrome packed into a small space.

    1. I think it transcends Trump derangement syndrome, it’s stupid enough to be just derangement, period.

      Yes, I know the left is painting this tweet as Trump somehow saying he was going to unilaterally reschedule or cancel the election, but Calabresi has to be aware by now that you can’t just assume that the left’s take on events has any connection to reality. And the tweet was available to read.

      And yet, he came out with this. Not Trump derangement, just plain vanilla derangement, I’m guessing.

  14. “If Trump really said that, why do I keep insisting he didn’t?!”
    “Who listens to Trump’s tweets anyway?”
    “You can’t impeach a President twice!”

    These are not the posts of people who think they have winning arguments.

    1. These are not the posts of anybody here, so far as I can see.

      I’ve read the tweet. You can, too. He just ASKED if it was a good idea.

      1. Read literally, you’re correct that he just asked if postponement was a good idea. But don’t you think he was (1) sending up a trial balloon so see if he could get any traction for postponing the election; and (2) by telling the world, based on no evidence whatsoever, that the election would be “the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history,” he was conditioning the public to the idea that he’s not going to accept the result if he loses? Is that good for the American democratic process?

        1. Again, what do you call THE LAST FOUR YEARS?

          We had a collusion hoax for years that was based on, literally, nothing.

          So fuck your “He won’t accept negative results” bullshit. His opponent was neck deep in the spying on him during the campaign.

          1. We had a collusion hoax for years that was based on, literally, nothing.

            I see we’ve found another person who didn’t read the Mueller report.

            1. I see we have one of those “Flynn is guilty. No backsies!” Never mind the exculpatory evidence hidden from him.

              1. I’m not sure what your response has to do with this discussion, but there was no exculpatory evidence, and nothing was hidden from Flynn. Every new fact was either not new or not a fact. Which is why Barr — unlike loopy Sidney Powell — never claimed that there were any Brady violations.

      2. These are not the posts of anybody here, so far as I can see.

        That’s how Sarc rolls. He’s never met a straw man he doesn’t like.

  15. Trump should want the election to go on as scheduled and hope everyone votes by mail because apparently the younger and browner folks most likely to vote democrat don’t know how

  16. I don’t think Trump has much of a chance of winning. But if he does how pissed are the liberals going to be…?

    1. The Left is not acting like a side that is winning. At all. And that everybody but the Far Left feels remotely safe discussing their political beliefs, I don’t see any reason to expect honest answers to pollsters.

      Trump gets more votes than Biden in primaries where he is unopposed. Biden does livestreams that nobody watches. He’s clearly too infirmed to talk without copious scripts to attempt to keep him on track. And he’s a comically corrupt imbecile.

      1. So actual facts about voting preferences — polls — mean nothing in your world because of unsubstantiated fantasies about people lying to pollsters, while completely meaningless trivia about viewers on livestreams somehow show who’s going to win. Gotcha.

        While Trump ranting about how the election results are going to be fraudulent and he won’t accept them shows confidence that he’s winning.

        I don’t know what “infirmed” means, but Trump literally can’t string two sentences together, and perpetually sounds like he knows nothing about any topic.

  17. I don’t think that Mr. Trump will win this year’s election as COVID finished all chances
    Best Vastu Consultant In Jaipur

  18. I’ve been reading the Conspiracy for about 15 years with daily emails from Reason. Odd how the Conspiracy always stood up as a voice of reason and always, always, always defended the right of free speech. Until now. Evidently most people have freedom of speech, just not the President of the United States if his name is Trump?

    The Conspiracy needs to sit down and think about why they drew a line in the sand that some have free speech and others do not. With hearings on the power of Tech, Facebook, Google, Apple, etc to shut down opinion and sway it, there was never a more important time than now to have principles.
    Dear Co-Conspirators: please find yours and stay the course. We the People are depending on it.

  19. I am happy to welcome Steve to the club of conservative and libertarian legal scholars

    I laughed.

    The only thing conservative about Somin is his desire to conserve the progressive (and dangerous) policies put in place by left-wing Democrats.

Please to post comments