The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Free Press Symposium on "Is Donald Trump Breaking the Law?"
The degree of agreement among participants with major ideological diferences is striking.

Today, the Free Press published a symposium on "Is Donald Trump Breaking the Law?"
Participants include (in addition to myself), several prominent constitutional law scholars and legal commentators : Jonathan Adler (Case Western/Volokh Conspiracy co-blogger), Aziz Huq (University of Chicago), Larry Lessig (Harvard), Andrew McCarthy (National Review), Michael McConnell (Stanford), Ed Whelan (Ethics and Public Policy Center), and yours truly.
The editors of FP summarize the contributions, as follows:
The consensus is striking—and perhaps surprising, given the ideological diversity of these contributors. All agreed that the president's legal tactics reflect a dangerous willingness to ignore statutory and constitutional constraints—and that he must be reined in quickly.
Speaking for myself alone, I think I have never before been part of an ideologically diverse symposium on a contentious topic where I agreed with over 90% of what the other participants said. But I do here, despite major ideological differences with all the others (except, probably, Adler). If I have a disagreement, it may be with Larry Lessig's argument that the best analogy to Trump's behavior is that of Mafia bosses. I think that comparison is a bit unfair to the Mafiosi, and the better analogy is to various nationalist authoritarians and wannabe authoritarians. But I do agree that what Lessig says is illegal is in fact so.
It's perhaps notable that two of the contributors (Huq and Lessig) are far to the left of me, and two others (McCarthy and Whelan) are far to the right. McConnell is also substantially more conservative than I am, but probably to a lesser degree than McCarthy and Whelan.
Skeptics can argue that FP cherry-picked the participants. But it's worth noting that Free Press is generally viewed as a right-leaning "anti-woke" publication. They've even been criticized for being excessively friendly to the MAGA movement and overly tolerant of its excesses.
Here's an excerpt from my own contribution:
The second Trump administration is trying to undermine the Constitution on so many fronts that it's hard to keep track. But three are particularly dangerous: the usurpation of Congress's spending power; unconstitutional measures against immigration justified by bogus claims that the U.S. is under "invasion"; and assertions of virtually limitless presidential power to impose tariffs….
Trump has claimed the power to "impound" federal funds expended by Congress, and to impose conditions on federal grants to state governments and private entities that Congress never authorized. The Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress, not the president….
On immigration, Trump has issued an executive order claiming illegal migration amounts to an "invasion," thereby authorizing him to suspend most legal migration. The order is at odds with overwhelming evidence indicating that, under the Constitution, "invasion" means an "operation of war" (as James Madison put it), not mere illegal border crossing or drug smuggling. The invasion order threatens not only immigrants, but U.S. citizens….
Similar bogus invocations of "invasion" have been cited by Trump to justify invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—legislation that can only be used in the event of war, "invasion," or "predatory incursion"—to deport Venezuelan migrants without due process to imprisonment in El Salvador….
The administration's claims that courts are powerless to order the return of illegally deported and imprisoned people menace not only immigrants, but American citizens. Under Trump's logic, they, too, could be deported and imprisoned abroad, and courts could not order their return.
Finally, Trump has usurped congressional authority over international commerce to impose his massive "Liberation Day" tariffs, thereby starting the biggest trade war since the Great Depression, and gravely damaging the U.S. economy….
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Trump is not just going to shops and putting things in his jacket. Everything Trump does is out in the open and based up by an officially promulgated legal theory of how it is a legitimate use of his powers backed up by other recognized legal scholars. It might not be a theory you agree. Also a lot of stuff is still working it's way through the courts. if this counts as breaking the law. Then so is any official who does something novel I don't like. Not to mention countless other officials who for example write laws clearly flouting the letter and intent of the first and second Amendment against doctrine that has already been settled and continue to look for ways to undermine the Constitution even after they are slapped by the courts. Or the countless pols whocircumvent our immigration laws that make Trump's actions necessary in the first place.
Trump decides what he wants to do and then asks his lawyers to find spurious but plausible legal justifications so that cultists can repeat them in defence of Dear Leader.
Trump isn't smart enough or creative enough to decide on his own what he wants to do. (Has he ever read a book? I doubt it.) Rather, he is susceptible to being influenced and manipulated by his flunkies, including the Project 2025 gang. He is essentially reading from a script prepared for him in advance by the cultists and their lawyers.
So the cultists tell him what to do, and he tells the cultists. A regular perpetual-motion machine.
The cultists are the ones who claim that a billionaire who was twice elected President and nearly so a third time "isn't smart enough or creative enough to decide on his own what he wants to do." This is just trash talk gone metastatic. A guy up in the bleachers pointing at somebody getting the gold medal at the Olympics and yelling "Clumsy!". It's a claim that beclowns everybody who makes it.
Is Trump breaking the law? Yes, OF COURSE he's breaking the law! Name a President in the last 50 years who didn't break the law in some way! Maybe Ford and Carter. Maybe. Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Biden, and, yes, Trump, all broke the law.
The more interesting question is whether he breaks the law to different ends and a different degree than most Presidents. But asking that requires acknowledging that Presidential lawlessness is endemic in this country.
A common fallacy to think that being a successful populist/ demagogue/ conman/ property developer means you have a high level of general intelligence as well as a broad base of knowledge.
Related to it is the idea that because Trump was a successful businessman, he musy know about macroeconomics.
Both positions are adopted either through ignorance, stupidity, or motivated reasoning.
This gets to the difference between logical proofs and heuristics, though, doesn't it? A "fallacy" is basically a flawed logical proof, where valid logical proofs are guaranteed to be true without exception, many fallacies are generally true, but sometimes false, and thus none the less reasonable heuristics.
Like, if you knew that somebody you were considering hiring as an accountant had a history of embezzlement, it would be a fallacy to assume that they'd embezzle your money, too. But you'd be mad to expect anything different.
So, it's possible to be successful in a number of fields without a particularly high general intelligence, if you have some targeted gifts, and decent diligence. But, "isn't smart enough or creative enough to decide on his own what he wants to do." is a pretty darned low bar for intelligence, now, isn't it? And it's not actually reasonable to think that a billionaire who has won two Presidential elections "isn't smart enough or creative enough to decide on his own what he wants to do.", even if it is theoretically possible.
So, Bellmore says...
Hmmmm...
I've never said this of Brett before, but today he provides an argument worthy of Dr. Ed. That they both seem to believe "many fallacies are generally true" helps explain why both of them express so many fallacious arguments.
On the other hand, in doing so here today, he was kind enough to gift us the perfect example of that related term:
Looking at your own example,
"the notion that the camera never lies is a fallacy"
But the notion that the camera seldom lies is a heuristic.
" a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid."
But, in terms of logical argumentation, what does "invalid" actually mean? Just that it is not guaranteed to be true! Not remotely that it is guaranteed, or even usually, false.
Seriously, "fallacies" are approaches to logical argument which fail to result in valid syllogisms. This doesn't mean they're not usually true, just that they're not always true.
Brett Bellmore : "And it's not actually reasonable to think that a billionaire who has won two Presidential elections..."
1. Drop the "billionaire" bit from your talking points. The ONLY reason Trump is a billionaire is because of Daddy's money. His business career ranges from mediocre to bungling incompetence. If DJT had taken the hundreds of millions Fred Trump gave him down to the corner Charles Schwab & led some just-graduated pimply-faced MBA invest it, he'd have come out way ahead. Indeed, there's plenty of evidence of Trump's raw stupidity to be found in his business career, particularly during his implosion after the brief period when he had some luck (after the Trump Tower, when DJT was bankrupting casinos and blowing oceans of cash on megalomaniacal lunacy).
2. The only long-term business skill he's shown exactly matches his political talents : Scamming the chumps & rubes with two-bit cons. See, without Fred's money Trump would have ended-up of a street corner somewhere running a three-card monte. The only difference today is his petty hustles are expanded & bloated in size by FCT's cash.
3. And though it's an interesting intellectual exercise to try and "prove" a priori that Trump's a genius, that still contradicts all empirical evidence. Even after Brett's "proof", Trump is still too ****ing stupid to know what a tariff is. He's still the imbecile who doesn't understand how trade balances work. He still can't speak above a grade school level. He still can't put together a coherent sentence.
"The ONLY reason Trump is a billionaire is because of Daddy's money."
And for about 30 years, has somehow managed to NOT lose it, the way a person who "isn't smart enough or creative enough to decide on his own what he wants to do." would naturally be expected to.
All you're doing is rationalizing why a wildly successful guy must really be a moron, despite the common sense observation that morons aren't typically wildly successful.
Is it so hard to understand that his biggest political asset is that his worst foes are absolutely committed to underestimating him?
The ONLY reason Trump is a billionaire is because of Daddy's money.
That's not true. Helping the Russians to launder money contributed to his wealth.
No, Brett. You've had this idiocy refuted before. They don't vote on gold medals. (Yeah, yeah, gymnastics and figure skating. But even in those, there are objective standards.) It's a claim that someone getting chosen as prom king doesn't make him smart. It's a popularity contest, not an IQ test.
I wonder whether Brett's reasoning is something like, "I would never vote for someone who wasn't smart, I voted for Trump, ergo Trump is smart"
Yes. That is literally what lawyer's are for.
Like, that's alao how most people operate - what do I want to do and how can I do it without breaking the law.
No, that’s not what lawyers are for. No, that’s not how Trump operates.
"No, that’s not what lawyers are for."
I assume you mean that normatively, because no way is that a reasonable empirical claim.
Does a bear have hair?
Does a big wheel roll?
Is Donald Trump breaking the law?
Discuss.
Doge is not open about what they are doing or accessing or planning.
They are pulling visas and telling no one so they can grab people with no notice.
RIFs come to agencies with no warning or explanation.
This is hardly a transparent administration.
Please remind us how you felt about Biden trying to cancel student loan debt, out in the open and based up by an officially promulgated legal theory of how it was a legitimate use of his powers backed up by other recognized legal scholars.
That was actually one of the things I was disappointed about with a trump victory. Ate out a bit too much and was a little too irresponsible and not ambitious enough. Before you know it got a big ball and chain and I was hoping for some of Dem gimmiedats to wipe it all away.
Stupid Trump
He didn't actually have that legal theory.
His plan was 'well, we'll do it again and again because it'll take the courts a few months to stop me'.
A better example would be Obama and Obamacare - tons of sneaky procedural bullshit to make that happen - but all *technically* legal.
Like the Senate gutting and amending a House bill so they could pretend the House originated a revenue bill, then Roberts covered their ass by calling it a penalty.
I wouldn't call that legal, but I wouldn't call most of FDR's New Deal legal either. Doesn't matter though, it's the courts which decide, and I'll give Sarcastr0 another chance to pick nits when I say that's just another example of how Rule of Law is just a fig leaf covering up Rule of Men.
That happens very regularly, both by Republicans and Democrats. If the bill says "H.R.", it originated in the House. (Otherwise how would the President know where to send it when vetoing?)
As an extra safety, though, the Senate usually uses a revenue bill as a legislative vehicle. Affordable Care Act used "A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes." This is a revenue bill, and "the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills".
Plus, there is a convincing argument that the Origination Clause can only be enforced by Congress.
"Like the Senate gutting and amending a House bill so they could pretend the House originated a revenue bill, then Roberts covered their ass by calling it a penalty."
That actually got Roberts' "penaltax" stupidity backwards. The Court simply doesn't give a damn about gutting and amending to let the Senate originate revenue bills. Under the "enrolled bill" doctrine, they flatly and expressly refuse to look at those sorts of procedural irregularities. It doesn't matter how much proof you have, they won't look at it.
The actual constitutional problem with Obamacare, (Well, the one in question here, there were plenty.) was that it levied a "penalty" without benefit of trial. It literally CALLED the penalty a "penalty" in the law, remember?
And Roberts construed the penalty to be a tax to save its constitutionality. Literally, the exact opposite of what you wrote.
Eh, sorry about the reversal. But that doesn't matter. All government revenue is a tax, whether it's called a fee, a penalty, or whatever. If it's not voluntary, it's a tax.
Your traffic ticket, that you can contest in court, is a tax? No, not legally, which is why you can contest it in court.
Do you think that if the Internal Revenue Code's child credit was "literally CALLED" the "no-child penalty," that it would require a trial before anyone could be required to pay it? Or if the mortgage deduction was "literally CALLED" the "no mortgage penalty"?
Oh hey, it's BrettLaw but some other schmo is doing it.
All of which was true. And when The Court blocked one avenue for cancelling debt Biden tried another, which is something people are allowed to do when told one method is invalid. That doesn't stop them from trying another. It's not like the Court said Thou Shalt Never Under Any Circumstances cancel debt.
As for the relative merits of the two presidents, one attempted to cancel student debt. The other is throwing people into El Salvador prisons without due process. I kind of prefer the former. Cancelling debt has biblical support. Throwing people into prison without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves, less so.
Right, one was attempting to void valid debts in order to transfer them to people who hadn't incurred them. The other was attempting to enforce laws despite an engineered resource scarcity. I prefer the latter. But I really dislike the means chosen, and Trump ought to expend more effort publicly shaming Congress for failing to properly fund the system.
The problem here is that Hitler had a legal theory for everything he did too. People who subvert constitutional democratic republics tend to do that. It doesn’t distinguish Trump in any way.
I think one has to pay attention to where the legal theory is leading , not just that he has one.
I think it’s also important that one of Trump’s key legal theories looks remarkably similar to one of Hitler’s. The Nuremburg laws stripped Jews of citizenship and made them aliens. When war broke out, Hitler duly proclaimed them enemy aliens under existing law similar to the US Alien Enemies Act. Putting Jews in ghettos and concentration camps was then legally justified as simply interning enemy aliens, something the US did to German and Japanese civilians in WWII. For the Final Solution, he built death camps outside formally German territory, in land that was German-occupied but still officially Poland and Russia’s. He then deported the Jews, as enemy aliens, to their final destination. And he took a legal position remarkably similar to the one Trump is taking - once enemy aliens are deported outside German territory, Germany has no responsibility for them, and in any event there is nothing that can be done to bring them back.
He too had lawyers supporting his positions.
I think one has to think about that a bit.
Yes.
One has to say that anybody comparing Trump to Hitler is a damned idiot.
>The degree of agreement among participants with major ideological diferences is striking.
Might be an indication that their ideological differences aren't all that great - or they're just 'Orange-man-badding' like everyone else does.
Because, surprisingly, the courts - at least above the district levels - keep siding with Trump on all but details. So he can't be that far out of bounds.
There's a cross-ideological belief that Trump is awful, but that's to be expected: Trump is a wrecking ball the GOP base is using to bust up a pathological political establishment, (Not saying he's not using them, too, to his own ends.) and the Republican intelligentsia are heavily entangled in that establishment.
It's been really impressive seeing a number of long term 'conservative' Republicans of that class jump ship and move over to the Democratic side of the aisle over this.
the courts - at least above the district levels - keep siding with Trump on all but details.
That's...a take.
An incorrect and stupid take, but a take, yes.
We've passed the point of Trump breaking the law in the sense of violating it and come to the point where he is breaking the law in the sense of damaging it to the point of rendering it inoperable.
Judge Wilkinson's opinion underscores the courts' difficulty--they must act with deliberation while the executive can move with dispatch. In a struggle between the two branches, time is very much on the President's side. Such is why heeding Alito's complaints that SCOTUS is acting prematurely would amount to surrender. Unless the courts can act prospectively, a rogue executive will serve up fait accompli after fait accompli that will render any ruling moot.
He's innocent until proven guilty, and has not broken laws yet.
Not all lawbreaking is criminal, and Trump the private citizen ≠ Trump the POTUS. Trump the private citizen has been convicted of so many crimes, you could be forgiven for thinking that's the subject when "Trump" and "breaking the law" appear in the same sentence. It just happens to have nothing to do with what barryajacobs is discussing. He's referring to Trump's lawbreaking as POTUS, which may or may not be criminal, and even if the acts in question are criminal, SCOTUS has so inoculated Trump from liability that any talk of "innocent until proven guilty" is irrelevant. That said, of course he's broken laws already.
You mean you can break non-criminal laws without being guilty? This must be some lawyer jargon quibbly thing, and I couldn't care less how lawyers twist words, the word is still pronounced lieyer.
A "criminal conviction" that violated basic legal rules (do not need to unanimously agree what the crime IS? For real?). Hold on to that one and then complain that I do not care about Trump's "law breaking"
No, Mr. Sealion. Not for real.
Imagine if all that talent and effort went into doing something good for people’s, building homes like Jimmuh Cartuh(and during his break takes care of the Guinea Worm) taking out poor Haitians Cataracts like Rand(y) Paul, or working at the “Free” Clinic like I do once in a while
I am sure we will you will be talking about how the judiciary has ignored its own statutory and constitutional constraints, issuing midnight ex parte orders with no jurisdiction.
What statutory constraints?
What constitutional constraints?
What do you believe ex parte means, and how does it apply here?
What is the jurisdictional issue, in your view?
You just write legalish sounding things.
I believe he is referring to Alito's recent dissent in which he charges the majority of the court with all those abuses.
Umm, yes Dave, dwb68 was. Not sure of your point,
Sarcastro noted the fact that dwb68 demonstrates zero understanding of the legalish sounding things he believes SCOCTUS is abusing.
Skeptics can argue that FP cherry-picked the participants.
"Skeptics" or anyone even casually familiar with the names of the participants. Trump's approval among conservatives is probably 95% or better. If you were to ask for a list of anti-Trump conservatives, the names Michael McConnell, Ed Whelan, and Andrew McCarthy would be near the top because they have all been engaging in anti-Trump tirades for years. They have zero credibility or influence in the conservative movement outside their own tiny circle of Trump haters. But the Free Press just couldn't find a single "legal expert" to express a counterpoint.
These are all anti-Trump clowns whose only audience is each other. If the Democrats win the House in 2026, there is a 100% chance they will impeach Trump for a third time. For what? They don't really care; any flimsy pretext will do. And, when that impeachment happens, there will also be a 100% chance that every participant in this symposium will fully support it.
Yes, if you excommunicate everyone against Trump from conservativism, you have a pure party.
Ironic you then claim the ones without any ideological diversity are the other guys.
But Trump is not a conservative. He is a revolutionary. He is not one to let change occur in some sort of organic manner. He and his pals are in the social engineering business, here to create the kind of society they want to see by force and against the will of those who would rather just get on with their lives.
It’s everything traditional conservatives are against.
In Orwell’s 1984, IngSoc party members retained some symbollic vestiges of socialism - wearing overalls, calling each other Comrade - even as they called the Proles useless idiots and created a highly structured class-based society where only Inner Party members had decent living conditions. Goldstein’s book-within-a-book said that this is how totalitarian personalities operate - they leach onto an existing movement and then transform it to something in their service, leaving symbolic (but highly visible) vestiges of the origin.
Trump is behaving no differently with Conservativism than the IngSoc party in 1984, or the pigs in Animal Farm, with socialism.
" and against the will of those who would rather just get on with their lives."
Many of whom had already created the sort of society they wanted to see, by force, and against the will of others who also would rather just get by with their lives. And so hardly had any claim of innocence or to being treated unjustly.
This isn't a revolution. It's a counter-revolution.
I define conservatives as believing in the importance of institutionalism; communitarianism surviving individuals; delayed gratification; pragmatic evolutionary change; and exhibiting humility about what we do not—and perhaps cannot—know.
The Republican Party under Trump, demonstrating belief in none of those traits, is not conservative. The Democratic Party? Strong belief and demonstrated action in the first two, shortcomings in the other three—once to a level greater than Republicans, but no longer.
Old, white, male, born and raised in rural Idaho, career enlisted military (SMSgt (ret) USAF), retired from a second career in IT Security, I am by temperament a natural conservative.
The illiberalism, anti-conservative radicalism, and near-Maoist levels of revolutionary zeal so consistently displayed by Trumpists, demonstrate they are not. Are you?
The problem is that the Republican party prior to Trump, particularly at the federal level, had been for decades running a bait and switch scam on social conservatives. They were supposed to support the economic agenda, and in return get support for the social agenda.
But the federal party never made much effort to deliver on the social conservative side of the bargain, and I think that finally broke the bargain, and the social conservatives no longer feel bound by it.
True! That's only part of it though. You're likely thinking of Republican Social Conservatism as mostly religion-based anti-abortion and anti-LBGT, but the wider "social agenda" to which you refer was from its beginning, far more racially-based.
Leveraging the casual racism evident in most of American society from its founding but reaching its zenith in the South, it was Richard Nixon's 1968 Southern Strategy—recruiting conservative Democratic Southern racists angered by the 1964-65 Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, to switch parties—that set the Republican Party on its ultimately destructive path.
As I said, by temperament I'm a natural conservative. Should probably be a Republican. Instead, I'm an Independent who has been regretfully unable to vote for a national Republican since GHW Bush's reelection attempt (he didn't deserve to lose to a kinda smarmy young Southern governor because of a short minor recession that had already ended). I do, however, continue to vote for thoughtful, rational local Republicans in the increasingly rare circumstances in which they manage to be nominated (last such was my own Secretary of State in 2020).
My three amply demonstrated reasons for that are three Republican trends than have been accelerating for the last 50+ years (the 2nd is possibly a root cause of the 1st and 3rd):
1) An initial acceptance of, then absolute dependence on, and finally GOP leadership's resultant catering to, a racist/xenophobic base.
2) R's demonstrated and increasing rejection of science-based/evidence-based decision-making.
3) A continuing unfortunate attraction to (often theocratic) populist authoritarian demagogues.
None of these are based on conservative principles. All have had an increasingly corrosive impact on American society's culture and governance. Amplified by the last few years' Trumpism, the result has been the devolution of Republicans into today's purely populist tribalism driven by resentment, envy, greed, and rage.
I long for the return of a thoughtful, rational conservative party—hopefully, within my lifetime—but there seems little chance it will be the GOP.
Trump is not a conservative.
He's somebody who ACCOMPLISHES things. Republicans do not do that.
For nearly a decade, Andrew McCarthy was one of Trump's strongest legalworld defenders, especially during and after the Mueller investigation and related RussaRussaRussa issues. He has not changed his opinion on that. But, yes, he did refuse to defend The Kraken
So, what American legal scholar would you have suggested? Sydney Powell? Michael Anton? John Sauer? Ed Martin? Alina Habba? Seems the Trump Administration hired nearly every "single "legal expert" to express a counterpoint" that might satisfy you (not too surprising; that talent pool is pretty shallow).
I do hear Rudolph William Louis Giuliani has some time on his hands. Or how about Paul Clement? Oh, but y'all seem really unhappy with with him lately. Your go-to might have been Jonathon Turley but he seems to be lying low during Trump's spate of embarrassingly indefensible Executive orders lately (probably smart).
Guess what? Turns out that not every controversy has two equally credible, defensible, sides.
I’m not so sure it’s so unfair to mafiosi. I think a mafia could reasonably be described as a small, unofficial authoritarian regime. If you make it bigger and make it the official government of a state or country, does it really change its structure or how it operates? It still operates largely through family and personal connections, still makes most of its income from protection money and rackets, still employs muscle to bump off potential rivals and scare people into submitting and paying protection.
Yup. Ilya Somin says:
But analogy is a comparison of significantly different things, as an illustration that they are comparable in significant respects. As Lessig uses it, comparing Trump to a Mafia Boss is a very good analogy.
Conversely, Prof Somin's "better analogy" is not an analogy at all—it's identification of a different example of the same thing, as Trump's actions demonstrate that his goal is to be an American Putin or Bukele, or Orbán or Erdoğan: "...nationalist authoritarians and wannabe authoritarians."
In understanding that, Lessig and Somin are in no disagreement at all.
No but the federal courts sure are.
Yet another disgrace from the legal profession. Way to double down on TDS after their lawfare failures.
The fuhrer enforces the law.
"The consensus is striking—and perhaps surprising, given the ideological diversity of these contributors. All agreed that the president's legal tactics reflect a dangerous willingness to ignore statutory and constitutional constraints—and that he must be reined in quickly."
----
Not striking nor surprising at all. A bunch of long-timed never-Trumpers get together and agree "orangemanbad".
I wouldn't have expected anything else from those that were listed as participating.
The Trump administration is engaging in lawfare, plain and simple. It's bad when the Left does it, but worse when it's the Right, because the Right is "better" at it. The Left is all about personalities, so they're forever limiting their attacks to individuals. The Right attacks issues, and that makes them much more dangerous.
The Right is not advocating assassinations.
The Left is.
Time for a new party to arise to challenge the Trump-controlled Republicans and have a Kansas-Nebraska Act moment appropriate for the times. There is cross-ideological agreement that Trump is a menace. If David Brooks can quote Marx, we know we are at a special moment.
(“I’m really not a movement guy,” he wrote. “I don’t naturally march in demonstrations or attend rallies that I’m not covering as a journalist. But this is what America needs right now. Trump is shackling the greatest institutions in American life. We have nothing to lose but our chains.”)
Does Mr. Somin realize that the act passed in 1798 occurred during a war, the Quasi War? It was an undeclared war, but a war nonetheless. Korean was a war. Vietnam was a war. How is the illegal invasion of the nation by 11 to 20 million people in a four year period not a war? Is Mr. Somin capable of changing his opinion when the facts change, or is he just a blind ideologue?
1) There was no "invasion" in the first place.
2) Immigration is not war.
3) There being a "war" is not enough; it must be a war by a nation or government. North Korea, North Vietnam, France: all governments. TdA: not a government.
4) Your statistics are made up to begin with.
5) They're also irrelevant even if one accepts Trump's position; this is solely about TdA (whether here legally or not), not about illegal immigration generally.
Free Press Symposium on "Do you hate Donald Trump" under the name of "Is Donald Trump Breaking the Law?"
Haters get free admission , others it's $10,000 a head.
All welcome