Trump's Favorite Justice Was One of Those 'Stupid People' Who Think Flag Burning Is Protected Speech
Antonin Scalia twice joined Supreme Court decisions rejecting bans on that particular form of political expression.
Antonin Scalia twice joined Supreme Court decisions rejecting bans on that particular form of political expression.
Facing an opponent who has been credibly described as a sexual predator, Biden instead emphasizes Trump's cover-up of a consensual encounter.
That take on the former president's New York conviction echoes similarly puzzling claims by many people who should know better.
The lack of a clear rationale for charging Trump with 34 felonies raises a due process issue that is likely to figure in his appeals.
Welcome to a system in which laws and regulations are weaponized by the powerful against opponents.
Whatever Trump did after the 2016 presidential election, it seems safe to say that it did not retroactively promote his victory.
There was a glaring mismatch between the charges against the former president and what prosecutors described as the essence of his crime.
The judge said the jurors need not agree about the "unlawful means" that Trump allegedly used to promote his 2016 election.
Closing arguments in the former president's trial highlight the mismatch between the charges and the "election fraud" he supposedly committed.
This week the judge presiding over Trump's trial ruled that jurors do not have to agree on any particular legal theory.
To convert a hush payment into 34 felonies, prosecutors are relying on a chain of assumptions with several weak links.
Contrary to what prosecutors say, the former president is not charged with "conspiracy" or "election fraud."
Under the prosecution's theory, Trump would be guilty of falsifying business records even if Daniels made the whole thing up.
New York prosecutors are relying on testimony from several people who do not seem trustworthy.
To convert a hush money payment into 34 felonies, prosecutors are invoking an obscure state election law that experts say has never been used before.
Since Donald Trump's alleged falsification of business records happened after he was elected president, he clearly was not trying to ensure that outcome.
The leading possibilities are all problematic in one way or another.
The former RNC chairwoman is in good company.
Neither Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg nor New York Attorney General Letitia James can explain exactly who was victimized by the dishonesty they cite.
The essence of the case, the Manhattan D.A. says, is that Trump "corrupt[ed] a presidential election" by concealing embarrassing information.
Stella Assange discusses the imprisonment of her husband on the third episode of Just Asking Questions.
Douglass Mackey's case raised questions about free speech, overcriminalization, and a politicized criminal legal system.
The Durham report is a "black eye" for the FBI, leading Democrats, and the media, says Lake.
Join Reason on YouTube Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern with Eli Lake to discuss what the Durham report tells us about the FBI, the media and U.S. politics.
Plus: Reexamining the roots of qualified immunity, who's really hurt by business regulations, and more...
The case against the former president is both morally dubious and legally shaky.
Plus: The editors respond to a listener question concerning corporate personhood.
Headlines about the 34 alleged felonies seem to have obscured newly revealed information about the weakness of the charges.
The continuing ambiguity reflects the legal challenges that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg faces in transforming one hush payment into 34 felonies.
Prosecutors are counting each record misrepresenting the former president's reimbursement of that payment as a separate crime.
Plus: Debating whether GPT-4 actually understands language, U.S. immigration law stops a college basketball star from scoring, and more...
Plus: the terrible case for pausing A.I. innovation
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is relying on debatable facts and untested legal theories to transform minor misconduct into a felony.
Plus: A listener asks the editors if the nation is indeed unraveling or if she is just one of "The Olds" now.
The case hinges on the claim that the former president tried to cover up a campaign finance violation with which he was never charged.
Plus: Libertarians ask Supreme Court to consider New York ballot access rule change, Wyoming bans abortion pills, and more...
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg reportedly intends to prosecute Trump for falsifying business records.
Alarmists are unfazed by the lack of evidence that "foreign influence campaigns" have affected public opinion or voting behavior.
"I think we need to just call this out on the bullshit it is."
Researchers: Moscow’s social media meddling had little impact on the 2016 election.
There is "no evidence of a meaningful relationship" between Russia's influence campaign on Twitter and the 2016 electoral outcome.
Over time, betting has been a better predictor than polls, pundits, statistical models, and everything else.
She was sentenced to more than five years for revealing how Russia tried to hack the 2016 election.
Plus: The difference between conservatives and libertarians, Utah Supreme Court upholds sex changes on birth certificates, and more...
As long as there have been American elections, foreign powers have sought to influence them.
Republicans have seized on the dubious claims of a psychologist who thinks Big Tech is shifting millions of votes to the left.
Feds now say the national security advisor's lie wasn’t “material” and they cannot prove it.
If you’re invoking an obscure law designed for the purpose of punishing political adversaries, don’t be surprised when it backfires.