Amash is saying Trump has engaged in an impeachable offense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acptulsa

A call for impeachment is a call to air evidence which has, so far, been kept secret. If any of this is Soviet-like, it isn't what Amash said.

---

You have to have evidence to even call for impeachment. Wouldn't it have been nice to just say "I think he did something" and call for impeachment of Obama back when? I would have stuck up for Obama also if they had tried this because it is unconstitutional and in the very least a bad bad road to start down.

they're not gonna impeach.





The democrats think there's a lot more to be gained by dragging this out as long as possible and leaving the smell hanging in the air up until election day. If they go to impeach, they're gonna have their asses handed to them just like when they pushed the Kavanaugh hearings to a head. You repeat something enough, it becomes true, but after a point, it's just tiresome. I say let them drag it out, then, until the phrase "Russia collusion" is an worn-out accusation to the point of being meaningless, like "racism."—a term the left has also destroyed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATruepatriot

Read back through your own replies, it is there if you are honest about it.

---

Why the cop out? You say I was wrong about something specific. Name it or do your reputation the courtesy of retracting your charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATruepatriot

Absolutely... But first there must be a case to justify. To justify a case there first must be evidence. You just can't assume someone is guilty based on rumor like many here are without any evidence yet. EVERYONE even the Orange man are innocent until proven guilty and he has been found guilty of a pre-crime here based on rumors so far from Amash.

He is not being afforded equal due process, he IS NOT GUILTY just because Amash says so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATruepatriot

You have to have evidence to even call for impeachment. Wouldn't it have been nice to just say "I think he did something" and call for impeachment of Obama back when? I would have stuck up for Obama also if they had tried this because it is unconstitutional and in the very least a bad bad road to start down.

---

And the Muller Report, which Justin Amash has access to in its entirety and you do not, is not devoid of such evidence because you say so. If you'd care to make the case that someone else, who also has access and has contradicted Amash, is more credible, that might be an argument worth considering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by specsaregood

And it is no different than charging somebody under the sole charge of "resisting arrest" when no other crime has been committed. It is a strange world when one sees self claimed libertarians arguing in favor of such absurdities.

---

I am not arguing in favor of it. I think criminal justice has no place in a free society. All disputes should be settled in civil courts via tort law.

But obstruction is definitely not the same type of crime as resisting arrest, because as I tried to explain: the collection of evidence is essential to achieving an indictment while resisting arrest is about the claim of the government over what it claims is its "legitimate power monopoly" (not my words, their words).
If the collection of evidence is obstructed (which is NOT claimed in the Mueller report by the way), the chance of achieving an indictment is lowered. And there is even a possibility that the underlying crime cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, because of the obstruction (see the Clinton investigation as an example). I look at it this way: Criminal justice procedures are not about the objective truth, they are about a provable subjective story that is constructed by the prosecutors and to be debunked by the defendant. The exisiting rules and regulations of criminal justice are a weird compromise between the privacy interests of the defendant and the interest of prosecutors to have the tools needed to reach the high standard of proof. The bar has been moved further and further towards the interests of the government and I dont support that at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheCount

It's appropriate when what you're trying to do is conflate two entirely different things in an intellectually dishonest manner. Specifically, what you're doing is called motte and bailey. In this case, guilt is the bailey and evidence is the motte.

---

I know what it means... And what you have done is trash the constitution and thrown it out the door. Look... Think about this reality... This very thing is what would have happened to Ron Paul from BOTH sides had he been elected. This would have been absolutely justifiable based on the perspective you are spouting here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleaner44

I like that Rand is helping Trump stop the Marxists. Amash seems to just be a never Trumper. Not impressed.

Trump certainly has his negatives, like all presidents, but his positives are better than any president I have seen in 50 years.

---

^^THIS

The moment he said "we need to get rid of this political correctness" I was all in. Just busting that Marxist brainwashing has made him worth it.

I am so proud of Justin.

I can't wait to see the names our resident alt-right trolls will call Ron Paul after he weighs in on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATruepatriot

I know what it means... And what you have done is trash the constitution and thrown it out the door. Look... Think about this reality... This very thing is what would have happened to Ron Paul from BOTH sides had he been elected. This would have been absolutely justifiable based on the perspective you are spouting here...

---

Evoking Ron Paul's name isn't hiding the fact that you're casting more vague and baseless aspersions. The Constitution considers neither an indictment nor impeachment a finding of guilt.

You know, I liked Clinton's impeachment, and not because I'm a partisan. Ken Starr's forty million was a small price to pay to keep Congress busy not screwing We the People for months on end.

some of you guys are as bad as the birthers

The way I see it is simple. There is a big problem threatening our republic and it is idiots that believe in Marxist nonsense. There are plenty of problems with the Republican party, just as there is with the Libertarian party, but the GOP is our best chance to beat back the Marxist hoard. You are either part of the problem, part of the solution or neutral.

Amash could choose to be neutral and that would be fine. Amash could choose to be part of the solution like Rand Paul is doing. Instead Amash has chosen to be part of the problem and aligned himself with Maxine Waters and Jennifer Rubin. For what purpose?

Trump will not be removed from office. He probably will be re-elected in 2020. If Amash doesn't want to work with Trump and offer advice like Rand does, then why not stay the hell out of the way? Instead he wants to push for president Pence? Stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleaner44

The way I see it is simple. There is a big problem threatening our republic and it is idiots that believe in Marxist nonsense.

---

Let's not forget out of all such marxist idiots, the one who occupies the most powerful position in the world is Donald Trump.

Pence is bad. But at least he's probably not as bad as Trump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATruepatriot

And what you have done is trash the constitution and thrown it out the door.

---

Which part? The imaginary part where the president has legal immunity? The alternative constitution in which the president is an all-powerful dictator?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATruepatriot

Look... Think about this reality... This very thing is what would have happened to Ron Paul from BOTH sides had he been elected. This would have been absolutely justifiable based on the perspective you are spouting here...

---

I reject your supposed reality in which Trump and Ron are comparable in this or any other manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acptulsa

A call for impeachment is a call to air evidence which has, so far, been kept secret. If any of this is Soviet-like, it isn't what Amash said.

---

Sadly, you can't reach people that have thoroughly swallowed the scripted narrative of a "deep state coup" against Trump. They're too far gone into the fluoride-induced mind control trance of the tv "news" productions.

Quote:

---

When you throw all principle to the wind to defend some clown just because you don't want to admit voting for him was a mistake, you become a useful idiot for the Establishment. And when you act as a useful idiot for the Establishment, you just can't help becoming a useful idiot for Democrats.

But you know. Purists keep us from nibbling at our problems blah blah blah.

---

I can't imagine living in such a mental state where all the lessons learned from Dr. Paul's campaigns left literally no imprint such a relatively short time later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devil21

Sadly, you can't reach people that have thoroughly swallowed the scripted narrative of a "deep state coup" against Trump. They're too far gone into the fluoride-induced mind control trance of the tv "news" productions.



I can't imagine living in such a mental state where all the lessons learned from Dr. Paul's campaigns left literally no imprint such a relatively short time later.

---

+rep

[QUOTE=acptulsa;6799239]Why the cop out? You say I was wrong about something specific. Name it or do your reputation the courtesy of retracting your charge.

"Inictment and impeachment merely put the case before the jury."

You just don't "merely" put ANY case before a jury at will. There has to be credible evidence first. This is a prerequisite and serious, it's not something you can just merely do at will and not view as being very serious, even more serious than a jury. The term "merely" indicates no big deal about it as if it is just a simple thing compared to a jury when it is not.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6799208

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acptulsa

And the Muller Report, which Justin Amash has access to in its entirety and you do not, is not devoid of such evidence because you say so. If you'd care to make the case that someone else, who also has access and has contradicted Amash, is more credible, that might be an argument worth considering.

---

RAND PAUL... And all the rest of Congress peers who have also read it. All these other judges don't count? only Amash? Sorry but something smells with this so far. And I actually like Amash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATruepatriot

QUOTE=acptulsa;6799239]Why the cop out? You say I was wrong about something specific. Name it or do your reputation the courtesy of retracting your charge.

"Inictment and impeachment merely put the case before the jury."

You just don't "merely" put ANY case before a jury at will. There has to be credible evidence first. This is a prerequisite and serious, it's not something you can just merely do at will and not view as being very serious, even more serious than a jury. The term "merely" indicates no big deal about it as if it is just a simple thing compared to a jury when it is not.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6799208

---

That's it? I'm dead wrong merely because you disapprove of my choice of adverb?

Well, then. You're entitled to that opinion. Thanks for clarifying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATruepatriot

RAND PAUL... And all the rest of Congress peers who have also read it. All these other judges don't count? only Amash? Sorry but something smells with this so far. And I actually like Amash.

---

And where did Rand Paul say he read it and found absolutely no evidence of obstruction? I haven't seen that quote. Sounds interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheCount

I reject your supposed reality in which Trump and Ron are comparable in this or any other manner.

---

You can reject it all you like... It is absolute fact. Ron would have been in the same boat and you would have been bitching and crying your head off if they tried this with him and so would I! THEN the Constitution would have absolutely mattered to you. The perspective you spout here is both a double standard and hypocrisy compared to if Ron was in this position. You are selectively recognizing the constitution with a huge bias against who benefits from it and who has no right to benefit from it.

THIS TRASHING OF THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT LIBERTARIAN, IT IS 100% LIBERAL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acptulsa

And where did Rand Paul say he read it and found absolutely no evidence of obstruction? I haven't seen that quote. Sounds interesting.

---

It's been all over the news this morning. I even read here on this site earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATruepatriot

You can reject it all you like... It is absolute fact. Ron would have been in the same boat and you would have been bitching and crying your head off if they tried this with him and so would I! THEN the Constitution would have absolutely mattered to you. The perspective you spout here is both a double standard and hypocrisy compared to if Ron was in this position. You are selectively recognizing the constitution with a huge bias against who benefits from it and who has no right to benefit from it.

THIS TRASHING OF THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT LIBERTARIAN, IT IS 100% LIBERAL.

---

What are you on about now? What if he'd have loved it because, one, the Congress would have been making a fool of itself trying President Paul over nothing, and two, the Congress would have been too busy doing that to get up to other mischief?

Do you work for the Psychic Network?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATruepatriot

It's been all over the news this morning. I even read here on this site earlier.

---

How did I miss that? Suppose I could trouble you for a link, or do you remember a useful keyword I could search?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATruepatriot

You can reject it all you like... It is absolute fact. Ron would have been in the same boat and you would have been bitching and crying your head off if they tried this with him and so would I! THEN the Constitution would have absolutely mattered to you. The perspective you spout here is both a double standard and hypocrisy compared to if Ron was in this position. You are selectively recognizing the constitution with a huge bias against who benefits from it and who has no right to benefit from it.

---

Why do you keep quoting less and less of my posts?

Why are you avoiding the meat of the discussion in order to focus on entirely made-up shit? Weren't you pretending to be all about facts and logic and due process? If so, why do you continue to dodge discussion of facts in order to instead make this all about feelings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATruepatriot

THIS TRASHING OF THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT LIBERTARIAN, IT IS 100% LIBERAL.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheCount

Which part? The imaginary part where the president has legal immunity? The alternative constitution in which the president is an all-powerful dictator?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheCount

The Constitution clearly states in Article I that Congress is granted certain legal immunities in the performance of their duties. If you are correct, then why does Article II not say anything about the legal protections that the President gets?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheCount

Impeachment is due process for the President.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acptulsa

Evoking Ron Paul's name isn't hiding the fact that you're casting more vague and baseless aspersions. The Constitution considers neither an indictment nor impeachment a finding of guilt.

---

The point is the constitution does grant the right to the presumption of innocence and due process. Ron would have absolutely been slammed like this by both sides and the constitution would have afforded him protections from it. But now the constitution is out the door and now doesn't apply and afford the orange man the same protections? This is biased hypocrisy and the constitution is not biased depending on who is to receive these equal rights. And any true Libertarian would first recognize the constitution, both good or bad of it, before anything else. Just like RON PAUL DOES.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kahless

Lets see the redacted portions that Amash is basing it on. How are we to judge otherwise.

---

We judge by the fact that the "investigation" was illegitimate in the first place. It was the "insurance policy" in the event that Trump actually won and it was financed by the Clinton Mafia and US taxpayers. What has gone on against Donald Trump is the classic narcissistic smear campaign, driven by Hillary Clinton's "dark triad" (narcissist, psychopath, Machiavellian) rage at being denied what she felt entitled to. Assisted by her army of flying monkeys and New World Order globalists and Mockingbird press, it was and is a coup by criminals to keep and further tighten their stranglehold on the Unites States while looting and destroying it, along with our constitution and freedoms. There is no obstruction because there was never any crime. Trump pushed back against a set up, a frame job, a "witch hunt", as he should have. In spite of all of that, the White House turned over millions of documents to the special counsel (also a bunch of criminals and Clintonistas) and cooperated with this outrageous, Soviet style political assault. As for firing Comey, Trump had the authority and right to do it and even Comey admitted that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATruepatriot

The point is the constitution does grant the right to the presumption of innocence and due process. Ron would have absolutely been slammed like this by both sides and the constitution would have afforded him protections from it. But now the constitution is out the door and now doesn't apply and afford the orange man the same protections? This is biased hypocrisy and the constitution is not biased depending on who is to receive these equal rights. And any true Libertarian would first recognize the constitution, both good or bad of it, before anything else. Just like RON PAUL DOES.

---

Is there an echo in here?

Repeating something doesn't make what I said about it any less true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by susano

We judge by the fact that the "investigation" was illegitimate in the first place. It was the "insurance policy" in the event that Trump actually won and it was financed by the Clinton Mafia and US taxpayers. What has gone on against Donald Trump is the classic narcissistic smear campaign, driven by Hillary Clinton's "dark triad" (narcissist, psychopath, Machiavellian) rage at being denied what she felt entitled to. Assisted by her army of flying monkeys and New World Order globalists and Mockingbird press, it was and is a coup by criminals to keep and further tighten their stranglehold on the Unites States while looting and destroying it, along with our constitution and freedoms. There is no obstruction because there was never any crime. Trump pushed back against a set up, a frame job, a "witch hunt", as he should have. In spite of all of that, the White House turned over millions of documents to the special counsel (also a bunch of criminals and Clintonistas) and cooperated with this outrageous, Soviet style political assault. As for firing Comey, Trump had the authority and right to do it and even Comey admitted that.

---

Either that, or it's designed to rally Trump's base around him while he runs up the debt, bans bump stocks, ramps up foreign wars, and does a dozen other things he was clearly not hired to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PAF

I am defending Amash’s 94% Freedom Index Record, one of which trump could never reach with a ten yard pole.

BTW, open borders yes, but ask Justin if he would advocate incentive/welfare payments, such that trumps long term goal will provide even more, which you are too blind to see, or admit. I’ve been around the block a few hundred times and know how such things work.

---

So, would you support open borders as long as we got rid of all welfare and social safety net programs? As Milton Friedman said, you can only have one or the other.

Do you think nation states should be dissolved?

Amash had taken issue with Trump long before this. This wasn't the beginning. Amash did not just sit down with his team, analyze the Mueller report, and suddenly come to the conclusion to lambaste Trump on twitter as a result due to principle. He tweeted about a month ago that he was going to do this, yet the issue ultimately goes back much farther than that. You can see on his Twitter feed right before he came out with this new batch of tweets, he was angered over the tariff situation and before that with overreach by the executive branch, which every single president is guilty of going back to Washington. On and on.

Like some have pointed out, he may not be too happy with the tariff situation hurting his business, but I'm sure it's even deeper than that, because he was calling for impeachment at least 2 years ago.

And the MSM has been backing him up calling him the only GOP opposition to Trump for years now, because it is convenient for them to, despite the fact he has been laughed at by the MSM since he often voted alone on bills in the spirit of Ron Paul. The media doesn't care about him, until he becomes useful and this attack is certainly useful to them. If he was going after Trump for all of the illegal wars we are still pumping billions of tax dollars into, then he would have a good point. If he had dedicated the level of passion he put into tweeting yesterday into this effort, then he would have a great point and would be standing on a hell of a lot more firm ground. Instead he is taking the Hillary/MSM created nonsense, because it's the loudest and best way to attack Trump at this moment. This is about attacking Trump and attempting to bring him down in some way, with the aid of the MSM. Complete political maneuvering.

This does not look or feel like an attack consisting of integrity, something Amash has spent nearly a decade building up, something the media and nearly every Dem/Repub has been laughing at him for since he took office, something we deeply appreciated him for. Something stinks to high heaven here, and it is sad that one of the best representatives of liberty over the past decade is playing into a nonsense narrative. When the MSM is agreeing with something that you are doing, that alone, above all other things, should make you worry. The MSM has been against Trump in nearly all cases, except when we started launching missiles in Syria, when we are killing people that furthers America's and Israel's interests.

All red flags and alarm bells should be going off right now, not because Trump is some completely innocent guy that does not warrant legislative oversight and criticism, but because the entity that has supported 100% of our occupational wars for half a century now whose primary focus is empire building and reduction/destruction of all of our civil liberties in order to continue accomplishing these outcomes, is suddenly loving Amash in recent years, because he is supporting their narrative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by susano

So, would you support open borders as long as we got rid of all welfare and social safety net programs? As Milton Friedman said, you can only have one or the other.

Do you think nation states should be dissolved?

---

There are about a hundred threads about that on this forum where you could refight that war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acptulsa

What are you on about now? What if he'd have loved it because, one, the Congress would have been making a fool of itself trying President Paul over nothing, and two, the Congress would have been too busy doing that to get up to other mischief?

Do you work for the Psychic Network?

---

You really do not see that Ron would have somehow been extremely hobbled and even ham-stringed by both the Republicans and Democrats if he became President and started to rock their world with his "radical" intentions? I love Ron Paul and wanted him to be President, but as a realist I was also intelligent enough to know he was not just going to walk in there and do everything he wanted and promised to do without any opposition at all, I would be an ignorant fool to even think so. We all talked about this during his campaign, even if he won the battle would just be beginning and he would have to fight tooth and nail against all the obstruction the left and right could muster and throw at him through his whole term. Unfortunately the reality is he probably would have not been able to get much at all he wanted to do done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acptulsa

How did I miss that? Suppose I could trouble you for a link, or do you remember a useful keyword I could search?

---

I will try to find it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATruepatriot

You really do not see that Ron would have somehow been extremely hobbled and even ham-stringed by both the Republicans and Democrats if he became President and started to rock their world with his "radical" intentions? I love Ron Paul and wanted him to be President, but as a realist I was also intelligent enough to know he was not just going to walk in there and do everything he wanted and promised to do without any opposition at all, I would be an ignorant fool to even think so. We all talked about this during his campaign, even if he won the battle would just be beginning and he would have to fight tooth and nail against all the obstruction the left and right could muster and throw at him through his whole term. Unfortunately the reality is he probably would have not been able to get much at all he wanted to do done.

---

That's a lovely sentiment, but it still doesn't support the position you took earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATruepatriot

You know the answer to that. To the leftist crybaby children, him just being President is now obstruction of justice.

---

That's exactly correct and, now, his mere existence is obstruction of justice. Not only was insurance policy (frame up) in place before he was elected, the demand for impeachment was and the base was ready to - hence the pussy hat bitches march right after inauguration.

BTW, Bill Hillary Clinton wearing purple when she appeared after losing was a nod and commitment to Soros' purple revolution plan for the US.

https://media.gq.com/photos/5a281177...ion-purple.jpg

Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to «go quietly into that good night». On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic «Blue America» and Republican «Red America» into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros’s «Purple Revolution» in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...le-revolution/

This thread is about reading the minds of Clintons regarding their unfortunate sartorial choices, now?

Well, I guess that's one way to kill a perfectly good thread.