Page 18 of 19 FirstFirst ... 816171819 LastLast
Results 511 to 540 of 550

Thread: Amash is saying Trump has engaged in an impeachable offense

  1. #511
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    None of you responded to what is detailed in the links I posted. I assume you didn't even read them. It's odd when detailed and exhaustively sourced evidence is presented and it is completely dismissed with a simple "nuh uh!", a meme and a nothing post. Kinda shilly, actually.
    We've been at this (muh Russia) over two years. A few of of us have also followed the whole Russian oligarch issue since the US engineered coup in Ukraine. You've got fvck all, buddy. No Trump crimes and no crimes in knowing or associating with Russians. You're just desperate. Mueller Time was a bust and the only hope is continuing smear campaigns and never ending, Beria style, harassment and investigations. I swear to God, it's just like Kafka's The Trial.

    Having spent some years posting on issue concerning Russia and encountering every type of anti Russia paid poster and troll, foreign and domestic, they usually fall into some limited categories:

    CIA puppet Ukrops & UkieNazis (not fake Nazis)
    NATO/GCHQ/US and other foreign intel keyboard warriors
    LGBTQ advocates
    Sharia Blue and other leftist shills
    Trotskyites/commies
    Neocons
    Hasbara (Israeli or otherwise)

    I deduce that you fall into one of more of these enemy camps.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #512
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    I'm on board ;-)

    For the record, I do not care if trump is impeached or not. But to call for Justin's oust here on this forum speaks more than volumes.
    THIS!
    *******

    I didn't start out thinking that anti-vax people were fools or impervious to reason, it's from my experience here that I now think that.
    - AmyPi 2014 (RIP)

    Anti-vaxxers, responsible for a 30 percent uptick in totally preventable diseases in the world, have blood on their hands. They shouldn't be considered civilized members of society. If they refuse to listen to a century of scientific studies confirming time and time again that vaccination is an unquestionable good for humanity, then it's time for us to start treating anti-vaxxers as what they are: dangerous and worthy of shame and condemnation. If we can't convince anti-vaxxers to change their minds, we must attach enough social stigma to the delusion that agnostics cease to join them.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #513

  6. #514
    Unless someone better comes along, I will still vote for Amash but I'll take a close look at his primary challengers. His excuses on this impeachment issue are bull$#@! but pros and cons must be weighed. I don't worship him or any other politician, including Trump. Nothing is partisan, it's all about beating back the Marxists. I'll always pick okay versus Satan.

  7. #515
    There's a few accounts that are trying a bit too hard to deflect and it shows. Looks like we have some shill ops underway on RPF. Maybe one day you fellas will graduate past meme school...
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks NC Fishing Boat Rentals

  8. #516
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    I'm on board ;-)

    For the record, I do not care if trump is impeached or not. But to call for Justin's oust here on this forum speaks more than volumes.
    I don’t think anyone should be calling for Justin’s ‘oust’. Has anyone said such a thing?

    But I think that you should care if trump is impeached because the results would most likely be the Marxist libs gaining power.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  9. #517
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Take a read from Rep. Amash’s explanation as to why he said what he said.
    https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...742256640?s=21


  10. #518
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    There's a few accounts that are trying a bit too hard to deflect and it shows. Looks like we have some shill ops underway on RPF. Maybe one day you fellas will graduate past meme school...
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6801588

  11. #519
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    I don’t think anyone should be calling for Justin’s ‘oust’. Has anyone said such a thing?

    But I think that you should care if trump is impeached because the results would most likely be the Marxist libs gaining power.
    A few people have, I am NOT one of them, one of the worst things about this mess is that we will likely lose Amash.
    I wouldn't trust him with higher office but as long as his voting record doesn't decay like Flake's did (I'm worried it will) we need him where he is.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  12. #520
    Quote Originally Posted by KEEF View Post
    Take a read from Rep. Amash’s explanation as to why he said what he said.
    https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...742256640?s=21

    I read that already, it's garbage.

    Trump cooperated more than he should have and you can't obstruct an illegal investigation.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #521

  15. #522
    Came across a video talking about this issue today. Dave Smith, a libertarian comedian and Ron Paul fan, had similar questions as some of those posed in this thread on his podcast, 'Part of the Problem', last week. He does think Trump could be impeached on a number of issues, but he said Amash is wrong or up to something by focusing on this issue, and it's unclear why since Amash has been good since joining Congress. He starts getting into it around the 5 minute mark. A lot of the best stuff is in the first 30 minutes, but he goes on for over an hour on the topic. If you can tolerate the vulgarity, it's a good listen:



    I think I agree with many of the concerns Dave had here. The quote he said earlier on in the video that went along the lines of "if you're a libertarian, this wouldn't even make the top 100 reasons to impeach." rings true. So many countless others that Trump is likely guilty of as far as constitutional law is concerned, yet close to zero time has ever been committed to any of these from Amash or any other member of Congress. They make it appear as if there is only one focal point, and that's collusion and now obstruction. All of the other war crimes we are supposed to forget about. Amash is now helping in that effort unfortunately, by keeping the focus with the most absurd talking points and allying himself with the media overlords. And also the comment in the video he made about every president in our lifetime warranting impeachment is true as well, which brings up the point, why wasn't Amash calling out Obama, Clapper (who clearly lied under oath), Brennan, and the whole lot of them with this level of scrutiny to the point of calling for their impeachment.

    Dave had been a guest on the Ron Paul Liberty Report a couple of years ago and RP was his inspiration for getting more active into politics and economic theory. Video below for reference:


  16. #523
    Unfortunately, TDS seems to be spreading to conservatives and GOP circles beyond Coulters, GOA leaders, Joe Walshes, Brietbarts, Foxnews etc.

    Ex-GOP lawmaker pens op-ed calling for Trump to be impeached




    One more MAGA skeptic Republican in news :

    Roy Moore says Trump 'doesn't control who votes': Alabamians are 'smarter than that'

    By Sam Dorman | Fox News


    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/roy...abama-election

  17. #524
    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Justin Amash has become an albatross upon the liberty movement in the last week. Through his calls to impeach President Trump, Amash has burned much of the goodwill the movement had built up through the actions of Rand Paul and Thomas Massie during the Trump era. Worst of all, he did so base upon logic which is fundamentally anti libertarian.
    Amash has posted several tweet threads supporting a narrative on obstruction not dissimilar from those pushed by networks such as CNN. In his latest thread, among many other things, Amash lays out an argument on obstruction which will strike any libertarian who has read the Mueller report as absurd.
    For the vast majority of Americans who have not read the entire report, I have broken down below exactly why Amash is wrong below. I list Amash’s six reasons in quotes, with my response directly below each one.


    “1. Trump asked the FBI director to stop investigating Michael Flynn, who had been his campaign adviser and national security adviser, and who had already committed a crime by lying to the FBI.”

    First of all, there’s no evidence that this conversation took place beyond the word of James Comey. We have his claim, and a “memo” that he illegally leaked to the press. The same James Comey who submitted a FISA warrant application which claimed Christopher Steele’s dossier was verified, when he months later went on to call it unverified when testifying to Congress. Comey’s word vs Trump’s is what you would base an obstruction charge on if this were your argument. That doesn’t pass the laugh test.

    Even if you can get past both of those things, they did not let the Flynn thing go and the POTUS never pushed them to do so afterwards, therefore no actions resulted from these alleged conversations between the POTUS and the FBI Director. No obstructive act can happen if no act happened.

    “2. After AG Sessions recused himself from the Russian investigation on the advice of DoJ ethics lawyers, Trump directly asked Sessions to reverse his recusal so that he could retain control over the investigation and help the president.”

    Asking the Attorney General to remain in charge of an investigation does not end the investigation, it does not impede the investigation, it does not deprive the investigation of any item required to complete it, and therefore it does not obstruct. Furthermore, the reasoning Amash spells out for why Trump did this is pure speculation. There are competing speculations which are just as valid as his, if not moreso. Some were even in the Mueller report.
    Even if asking someone not to recuse themselves would rise to the level of obstruction in normal circumstances (it wouldn’t), the POTUS has Article II power over his inferior officers. Even if you could get past the fact that there’s no obstructive act, no attempt to end the investigation, no misconduct of any kind, the argument fails because of that. Even if you can get past both of those things, Sessions remained recused, therefore no actions resulted from these conversations between the POTUS and the Attorney General. No obstructive act can happen if no act happened. Next argument.

    “3. Trump directed the White House counsel, Don McGahn, to have Special Counsel Mueller removed on the basis of pretextual conflicts of interest that Trump’s advisers had already told him were “ridiculous” and could not justify removing the special counsel.”


    Like keeping on Sessions as the AG, removing Mueller as head of the special counsel does not end the special counsel. It does not end the investigation, it does not impede the investigation, it does not deprive the investigation of any item required to complete it, and therefore it does not obstruct.
    This makes the reasoning for having done this irrelevant, but the implication that the reasoning matters goes to the notion of corrupt intent, so let’s briefly address that. Donald Trump had what he described as a “nasty business transaction” involving Robert Mueller. Mueller applied to be the FBI director and didn’t get the job. Mueller was a close personal friend of James Comey. For all of these reasons, Trump may very well have thought the conflicts were legitimate and disagreed with McGahn. Therefore, proving intent is also virtually impossible.
    Furthermore, and most importantly, McGahn did not follow through on this alleged request. Not a single action was taken as the result of these discussions between the POTUS and his White House Counsel. Since no act was taken at all, there was no obstructive act. Next argument.

    “4. When that event was publicly reported, Trump asked that McGahn make a public statement and create a false internal record stating that Trump had not asked him to fire the special counsel, and suggested that McGahn would be fired if he did not comply.”

    Let’s say that this was true, and Donald Trump intentionally told Don McGahn to lie to the public about Trump asking him to fire Mueller. Lying to the media and the American people is not lying to the special counsel, and therefore cannot possibly be considered obstruction of justice. Since the special counsel never asked him this question directly, it could not have possibly been necessary to their investigation, so the idea that this statement to the press deprived them of something necessary to their investigation is refuted by the record.

    Furthermore, Mueller actually laid out a fairly strong argument that Trump genuinely disputed McGahn’s characterization that he told McGahn to fire Mueller. Finally, McGahn refused the alleged request and never called Rod Rosenstein to make this case. So, even if you threw the entire above paragraph away, no action resulted from these discussions between the POTUS and his White House Counsel. That fact alone makes any obstruction argument absurd.

    “5. Trump asked Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to tell AG Sessions to limit the special counsel’s investigation only to future election interference. Trump said Lewandowski should tell Sessions he was fired if he would not meet with him.”

    Similarly to the above, Trump disputes this characterization, and Lewandowski says he refused the alleged order and never told Sessions to do this. The only evidence you have that it took place is the word of a former campaign manager, and even if you could prove it happened there wasn’t a single action which resulted from these alleged discussions. So, you have the problem of it being one mans word against another, and then the problem of no action having resulted from the alleged discussion. That makes the case that an obstructive act occurred untenable.

    “6. Trump used his pardon power to influence his associates, including Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, not to fully cooperate with the investigation.”

    That is just plainly false. Let’s break down what Amash is claiming that Mueller laid out as evidence of Trump ‘using his pardon power’ in these cases:
    What Mueller claimed that Trump and Trump aides said to Cohen consisted of support lines such as “the POTUS wants to check in and see if you’re okay”, “hang in there”, “stay strong”, “the POTUS says he loves you and not to worry” and “You are loved, stay well tonight, you have friends in high places”. This was all in the aftermath of Cohen’s office being raided by the feds. None of these messages mention a pardon or hint at anything transactional. The notion that these messages amounted to dangling his pardon power over Cohen is absurd.
    The only thing Mueller says in relation to pardons is that Cohen claims he discussed one with the POTUS’s personal counsel, and that he understood the counsel’s responses to these questions that “(Cohen) would be fine” to mean that he would get a pardon as long as he stayed on message. A convicted perjurer saying that he understood this as an implication. Not exactly ironclad credibility or a bombshell allegation.
    The evidence in regards to Manafort is even flimsier. It consists of two pieces of evidence: Trump saying Manafort was treated unfairly in public and Guiliani suggesting in TV interviews that nonspecific people may be pardoned, but only once the investigation ends.
    In the case of both, Mueller brought up the instances of Trump saying that neither Cohen nor Manafort would “flip”. At every point where Trump says this he makes clear that he believes this is a witch hunt investigation, and that “flipping” means they will tell the investigators a falsehood at his expense in exchange for a reduced sentence. These lines are no evidence of obstruction, they are evidence that Trump knew he was dealing with dirty cops.
    To review, not only did Amash not manage to point out an obstructive act in his analysis of the Mueller report, his impotent attempt exposes the inherent weakness of the argument for obstruction. 5 of the 6 things he brings up involve conversations (some of which are disputed by Trump himself) between Trump and various campaign and White House officials, where in each case the White House or campaign official in question did not act upon what was supposedly discussed.
    In each of these cases, since there was no act taken at all, there can be no obstructive act.
    In the final case, the notion of dangling pardons for Cohen and Manafort, Amash relies on generic well wishing and Guiliani stating the President’s pardon powers as a basis for the notion that there was an implication that President Trump would pardon these people. No quid pro quo was established, no offer was ever made, and no pardon was ever granted.
    Make no mistake, ladies and gentlemen, you should be very angry at Justin Amash for the position his anti liberty stance has put every Liberty Conservative in with the GOP base. His pro FBI crusade, if it is allowed to be seen as the libertarian position, may have severe negative repercussions upon our movement which last for a very long time.


    https://libertyconservativenews.com/...tion-argument/
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  18. #525
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    One of the downsides of this announcement by Amash is that it has given the usual suspects (neocons, teocons, etc.) an excuse to issue blanket smears of “libertarians”.
    In hindsight, I underestimated the damage done by the media to Amash. They smeared and ripped him apart. All of the neocon/teocon pundits and hosts. From your smallest market upstart, to the big ones on radio and Fox News. It was brutal.

    I have found that you can tell a colleague, friend or family member all about how a certain politician is good, honest and does the right thing. You can tell them for years. All it takes is a single rant by a pundit, and the person you know will say “that politician you like sucks, I hope he gets voted out.”
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  19. #526
    Maybe Justin is just tired of being in congress for a dying movement that doesn't appreciate him (where it counts). This way he can bow out fighting in the blaze of glory and go back to the private sector.
    How to plug a TWEET in post [ TWEET] [/TWEET ]

  20. #527
    “I thought most Republicans knew that this was a witch hunt and the witch hunt is over”
    -Rand Paul

  21. #528
    Quote Originally Posted by KEEF View Post
    Take a read from Rep. Amash’s explanation as to why he said what he said.
    https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...742256640?s=21

    And Amash is correct.
    There is no spoon.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #529
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    And Amash is correct.
    Amash is dead wrong:

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Justin Amash has become an albatross upon the liberty movement in the last week. Through his calls to impeach President Trump, Amash has burned much of the goodwill the movement had built up through the actions of Rand Paul and Thomas Massie during the Trump era. Worst of all, he did so base upon logic which is fundamentally anti libertarian.
    Amash has posted several tweet threads supporting a narrative on obstruction not dissimilar from those pushed by networks such as CNN. In his latest thread, among many other things, Amash lays out an argument on obstruction which will strike any libertarian who has read the Mueller report as absurd.
    For the vast majority of Americans who have not read the entire report, I have broken down below exactly why Amash is wrong below. I list Amash’s six reasons in quotes, with my response directly below each one.


    “1. Trump asked the FBI director to stop investigating Michael Flynn, who had been his campaign adviser and national security adviser, and who had already committed a crime by lying to the FBI.”

    First of all, there’s no evidence that this conversation took place beyond the word of James Comey. We have his claim, and a “memo” that he illegally leaked to the press. The same James Comey who submitted a FISA warrant application which claimed Christopher Steele’s dossier was verified, when he months later went on to call it unverified when testifying to Congress. Comey’s word vs Trump’s is what you would base an obstruction charge on if this were your argument. That doesn’t pass the laugh test.

    Even if you can get past both of those things, they did not let the Flynn thing go and the POTUS never pushed them to do so afterwards, therefore no actions resulted from these alleged conversations between the POTUS and the FBI Director. No obstructive act can happen if no act happened.

    “2. After AG Sessions recused himself from the Russian investigation on the advice of DoJ ethics lawyers, Trump directly asked Sessions to reverse his recusal so that he could retain control over the investigation and help the president.”

    Asking the Attorney General to remain in charge of an investigation does not end the investigation, it does not impede the investigation, it does not deprive the investigation of any item required to complete it, and therefore it does not obstruct. Furthermore, the reasoning Amash spells out for why Trump did this is pure speculation. There are competing speculations which are just as valid as his, if not moreso. Some were even in the Mueller report.
    Even if asking someone not to recuse themselves would rise to the level of obstruction in normal circumstances (it wouldn’t), the POTUS has Article II power over his inferior officers. Even if you could get past the fact that there’s no obstructive act, no attempt to end the investigation, no misconduct of any kind, the argument fails because of that. Even if you can get past both of those things, Sessions remained recused, therefore no actions resulted from these conversations between the POTUS and the Attorney General. No obstructive act can happen if no act happened. Next argument.

    “3. Trump directed the White House counsel, Don McGahn, to have Special Counsel Mueller removed on the basis of pretextual conflicts of interest that Trump’s advisers had already told him were “ridiculous” and could not justify removing the special counsel.”


    Like keeping on Sessions as the AG, removing Mueller as head of the special counsel does not end the special counsel. It does not end the investigation, it does not impede the investigation, it does not deprive the investigation of any item required to complete it, and therefore it does not obstruct.
    This makes the reasoning for having done this irrelevant, but the implication that the reasoning matters goes to the notion of corrupt intent, so let’s briefly address that. Donald Trump had what he described as a “nasty business transaction” involving Robert Mueller. Mueller applied to be the FBI director and didn’t get the job. Mueller was a close personal friend of James Comey. For all of these reasons, Trump may very well have thought the conflicts were legitimate and disagreed with McGahn. Therefore, proving intent is also virtually impossible.
    Furthermore, and most importantly, McGahn did not follow through on this alleged request. Not a single action was taken as the result of these discussions between the POTUS and his White House Counsel. Since no act was taken at all, there was no obstructive act. Next argument.

    “4. When that event was publicly reported, Trump asked that McGahn make a public statement and create a false internal record stating that Trump had not asked him to fire the special counsel, and suggested that McGahn would be fired if he did not comply.”

    Let’s say that this was true, and Donald Trump intentionally told Don McGahn to lie to the public about Trump asking him to fire Mueller. Lying to the media and the American people is not lying to the special counsel, and therefore cannot possibly be considered obstruction of justice. Since the special counsel never asked him this question directly, it could not have possibly been necessary to their investigation, so the idea that this statement to the press deprived them of something necessary to their investigation is refuted by the record.

    Furthermore, Mueller actually laid out a fairly strong argument that Trump genuinely disputed McGahn’s characterization that he told McGahn to fire Mueller. Finally, McGahn refused the alleged request and never called Rod Rosenstein to make this case. So, even if you threw the entire above paragraph away, no action resulted from these discussions between the POTUS and his White House Counsel. That fact alone makes any obstruction argument absurd.

    “5. Trump asked Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to tell AG Sessions to limit the special counsel’s investigation only to future election interference. Trump said Lewandowski should tell Sessions he was fired if he would not meet with him.”

    Similarly to the above, Trump disputes this characterization, and Lewandowski says he refused the alleged order and never told Sessions to do this. The only evidence you have that it took place is the word of a former campaign manager, and even if you could prove it happened there wasn’t a single action which resulted from these alleged discussions. So, you have the problem of it being one mans word against another, and then the problem of no action having resulted from the alleged discussion. That makes the case that an obstructive act occurred untenable.

    “6. Trump used his pardon power to influence his associates, including Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, not to fully cooperate with the investigation.”

    That is just plainly false. Let’s break down what Amash is claiming that Mueller laid out as evidence of Trump ‘using his pardon power’ in these cases:
    What Mueller claimed that Trump and Trump aides said to Cohen consisted of support lines such as “the POTUS wants to check in and see if you’re okay”, “hang in there”, “stay strong”, “the POTUS says he loves you and not to worry” and “You are loved, stay well tonight, you have friends in high places”. This was all in the aftermath of Cohen’s office being raided by the feds. None of these messages mention a pardon or hint at anything transactional. The notion that these messages amounted to dangling his pardon power over Cohen is absurd.
    The only thing Mueller says in relation to pardons is that Cohen claims he discussed one with the POTUS’s personal counsel, and that he understood the counsel’s responses to these questions that “(Cohen) would be fine” to mean that he would get a pardon as long as he stayed on message. A convicted perjurer saying that he understood this as an implication. Not exactly ironclad credibility or a bombshell allegation.
    The evidence in regards to Manafort is even flimsier. It consists of two pieces of evidence: Trump saying Manafort was treated unfairly in public and Guiliani suggesting in TV interviews that nonspecific people may be pardoned, but only once the investigation ends.
    In the case of both, Mueller brought up the instances of Trump saying that neither Cohen nor Manafort would “flip”. At every point where Trump says this he makes clear that he believes this is a witch hunt investigation, and that “flipping” means they will tell the investigators a falsehood at his expense in exchange for a reduced sentence. These lines are no evidence of obstruction, they are evidence that Trump knew he was dealing with dirty cops.
    To review, not only did Amash not manage to point out an obstructive act in his analysis of the Mueller report, his impotent attempt exposes the inherent weakness of the argument for obstruction. 5 of the 6 things he brings up involve conversations (some of which are disputed by Trump himself) between Trump and various campaign and White House officials, where in each case the White House or campaign official in question did not act upon what was supposedly discussed.
    In each of these cases, since there was no act taken at all, there can be no obstructive act.
    In the final case, the notion of dangling pardons for Cohen and Manafort, Amash relies on generic well wishing and Guiliani stating the President’s pardon powers as a basis for the notion that there was an implication that President Trump would pardon these people. No quid pro quo was established, no offer was ever made, and no pardon was ever granted.
    Make no mistake, ladies and gentlemen, you should be very angry at Justin Amash for the position his anti liberty stance has put every Liberty Conservative in with the GOP base. His pro FBI crusade, if it is allowed to be seen as the libertarian position, may have severe negative repercussions upon our movement which last for a very long time.


    https://libertyconservativenews.com/...tion-argument/
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  24. #530
    Why does suggesting impeachment make Amash a leftist, but not Trump when he says things like "Take the guns first, due process second"?

  25. #531
    Quote Originally Posted by EBounding View Post
    Why does suggesting impeachment make Amash a leftist, but not Trump when he says things like "Take the guns first, due process second"?
    How is using a phoney witch hunt started by the democrats as an insurance policy to impeach a president not siding with the lefitst? Do you really not see them doing the same thing to Rand Paul if he won?
    Last edited by nikcers; 06-10-2019 at 06:36 AM.

  26. #532
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    How is using a phoney witch hunt started by the democrats as an insurance policy to impeach a president not siding with the lefitst? Do you really not see them doing the same thing to Rand Paul if he won?
    Is this supposed to be the answer to my question?

  27. #533
    Quote Originally Posted by EBounding View Post
    Is this supposed to be the answer to my question?
    The democrats want to take the guns, you are literally siding with the Clintons.

  28. #534
    Quote Originally Posted by eleganz View Post
    Maybe Justin is just tired of being in congress for a dying movement that doesn't appreciate him (where it counts). This way he can bow out fighting in the blaze of glory and go back to the private sector.
    well at least he has been there long enough to guarantee his congressional pension.

  29. #535
    Quote Originally Posted by EBounding View Post
    Why does suggesting impeachment make Amash a leftist, but not Trump when he says things like "Take the guns first, due process second"?
    You act like we are going to get Justin Amash or Rand Paul if Trump gets impeached. We will probably get someone worse. I have never seen a democrat make this argument.

    Just talk about it. You have to talk about it. But Piers, when somebody has a gun illegally and nobody else has a gun because the laws are that you can't have a gun those people are gone, they have no choice. They have no chance. They have no chance. It's a very tough subject. But the bad guys are not getting rid of their guns, pretty much everybody agrees with that.
    The people that obey the laws, if there was a law passed, they get rid -- Those people are sitting ducks. You know the one I think about the most is Paris, where there are so many people killed were that wacky group of people, went into the nightclub and they just boom, boom, boom, and they killed like tremendous numbers of people horribly injured, so many were still in the hospital, I read the other day.

  30. #536
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    The democrats want to take the guns, you are literally siding with the Clintons.
    What's with you, lately? Questioning some of Trump's actions on this whole mess, is NOT siding with the Clintons.

    None of us believe the Russian BS- but that doesn't mean that all of Trump's responses/actions were appropriate or legal for a POTUS. Amash believes they should be looked into. If it was Hillary in the exact same situation, y'all would be screaming for it.
    There is no spoon.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #537
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    What's with you, lately? Questioning some of Trump's actions on this whole mess, is NOT siding with the Clintons.

    None of us believe the Russian BS- but that doesn't mean that all of Trump's responses/actions were appropriate or legal for a POTUS. Amash believes they should be looked into. If it was Hillary in the exact same situation, y'all would be screaming for it.
    I have said multiple times I stand with Rand and I wouldn't want FISA being weaponized against any president. $#@! the deep state and their defenders.

  33. #538
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    I have said multiple times I stand with Rand and I wouldn't want FISA being weaponized against any president. $#@! the deep state and their defenders.
    Then we agree.
    There is no spoon.

  34. #539
    “As described in Volume I, the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had any unlawful relationship with any Russian official. But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal or political concerns.”
    So if they couldn't prove any wrong doing after all of this time, we should look into this further because Trump could have thought or understood there was a crime. Let that sink in, Trump while he was getting attacked for over 3 years, constantly having people on the news report that there is damning evidence that he colluded with the Russians, and there was nothing, but they were succesfull in making Trump think that he was guilty or that his campaign was guilty. So the FBI gaslighted Trump, abused his liberty by abusing the FISA system in order to investigate him because they could not do so legally, and all because of a Hillary Clinton scam. You guys are so engrossed in your hatred towards Trump, you forgot this was a defender of liberty forum. This forum is literally in the "defenders of liberty". What about Trumps liberty, because they went after everyone in his campaign in order to get to Trump using FISA courts that are supposed to be for foreigners, abusing the fourth amendment and they couldn't even prove any wrong doing by him after spending 10's of millions of dollars and years investigating.

  35. #540
    Quote Originally Posted by EBounding View Post
    Why does suggesting impeachment make Amash a leftist, but not Trump when he says things like "Take the guns first, due process second"?
    Amash would have been justified in making a case to impeach Trump for saying that quote, but he is not justified in impeaching Trump over the Russiagate bull$#@! which was a partisan spying op. He $#@!ed up. He went full retard on this one. I still support him because he votes well, but that was just a terrible decision. Or maybe it was a good decision for him to make what appears to be a terrible, bull$#@! decision. Who knows. All I know is that he is totally wrong.

    Trump is much further right on gun rights than your average person in this country. He is far from perfect, though.
    Last edited by dannno; 06-10-2019 at 10:51 AM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

Page 18 of 19 FirstFirst ... 816171819 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. What is an impeachable offense?
    By Douglass Bartley in forum U.S. Constitution
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-05-2019, 01:17 AM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-18-2014, 09:51 AM
  3. Paul: cleric's death could be impeachable offense
    By sailingaway in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-03-2011, 05:08 PM
  4. Is Libya intervention an ‘impeachable’ offense?
    By Fire11 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 03-31-2011, 05:32 PM
  5. Ron Paul believes Libya intervention an ‘impeachable’ offense
    By RonPaulFanInGA in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-24-2011, 11:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •