Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 56 of 56

Thread: Unlike President Donald Trump, Justin Amash Actually Fights Against FISA Surveillance Abuse

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by AZJoe View Post
    First, this statement confirms nothing to support that Amash "supports the Deepstate use of FISA fraud".

    Secondly, no, a politician corruptly breaking laws to obstruct justice does not become ok simply because the politicians believes the investigation is corrupt. That like saying its ok to break the law because you are only breaking the law to refute others who broke the law. That's nonsensical and has no foundation in any American law.

    And no opposing subsequent crimes is not endorsement of prior abuse of process. For instance a police officer may hide evidence or destroy evidence of in a case where the defendant actually committed terrible murders. Opposing the corrupt obstruction of justice by the officer after the fact, does not mean you endorse the underlying murders committed by the murderer.

    You may disagree with Amash's position on obstruction based on lack of evidence of obstruction, and that is a proper argument. Much better than making up falsehoods about Amash's position. I have yet to see any sufficient evidence of any obstruction. However that is based on lack of evidence, not because of a belief that politicians should abuse their power in corrupt ways to rig investigations simply because they believe the investigation is corrupt.
    If the investigation was illegal then you can't charge someone for obstructing it, that would be like charging you for obstruction of justice because you found drugs that were planted in your car and threw them out the window on the highway.

    The investigation wasn't just corrupt, it was illegal and Trump didn't just guess that the investigation was illegal he had proof it was illegal.

    If you support prosecuting someone using "the fruit of a poisonous tree" you are supporting the illegal spying that was the "poisonous tree".

    Here is a good breakdown of how wrong Amash is on obstruction even if the investigation wasn't illegal:

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    If the investigation was illegal then you can't charge someone for obstructing it, that would be like charging you for obstruction of justice because you found drugs that were planted in your car and threw them out the window on the highway. ...

    If you support prosecuting someone using "the fruit of a poisonous tree" you are supporting the illegal spying that was the "poisonous tree".:
    None of these comments provide anything whatsoever to to support the false claim that Amash "supports the Deepstate use of FISA fraud". SS' list of points by Amash confirms the claim as false.

    As to the collateral issues -

    "fruit of the poisonous tree" refers to evidence obtained from an unlawful search. None of the alleged obstruction events came from any unlawful search. These are events that happened months and years after the FISA warrant. None of the evidence of the alleged obstruction was obtained from the FISA warrant.

    Is a defendant's believes the investigation frivolous or unlawful they can contest on those issues. That belief however is not a permit permit a defendant free rein to commit to put political pressure investigators, or judges, or tamper with witnesses. One corruption does not justify another.

    SS would be better off arguing no evidence of any obstruction rather than arguing that it is appropriate for a politician to use the power of his his office to pressure and influence investigators and witnesses.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by AZJoe View Post
    None of these comments provide anything whatsoever to to support the false claim that Amash "supports the Deepstate use of FISA fraud". SS' list of points by Amash confirms the claim as false.

    As to the collateral issues -

    "fruit of the poisonous tree" refers to evidence obtained from an unlawful search. None of the alleged obstruction events came from any unlawful search. These are events that happened months and years after the FISA warrant. None of the evidence of the alleged obstruction was obtained from the FISA warrant.

    Is a defendant's believes the investigation frivolous or unlawful they can contest on those issues. That belief however is not a permit permit a defendant free rein to commit to put political pressure investigators, or judges, or tamper with witnesses. One corruption does not justify another.

    SS would be better off arguing no evidence of any obstruction rather than arguing that it is appropriate for a politician to use the power of his his office to pressure and influence investigators and witnesses.
    The President is the master and commander of the DoJ, he is its sole source of power.
    He has every right to order it to cease and desist any investigation that is based on illegal spying, lies and entrapment.

    Amash is endorsing the investigation by endorsing the obstruction charges, without the illegal spying, lies and entrapment there would have been no investigation to obstruct.
    If a cop breaks into my house without a warrant and I throw him out am I "obstructing justice"?
    If I find drugs he planted and flush them down the sewer system am I "obstructing" the investigation that happens when he phones in an "anonymous" tip to his department?


    Amash is endorsing the entire treasonous coup and all the illegal spying by twisting the truth to try and provide the criminals with a "happy ending" impeachment that achieves their objective, if he got his way the deepstate would be emboldened to conduct even more illegal spying and domestic coups.
    The fact that his claims of obstruction are so ludicrous makes it clear that he is attempting to finish what the deepstate started but failed to successfully complete.
    It doesn't matter whether he is just foolish and consumed with TDS or whether he is fully complicit.
    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

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The President is the master and commander of the DoJ, he is its sole source of power.
    He has every right to order it to cease and desist any investigation that is based on illegal spying, lies and entrapment. ...
    "Master and and commander" ? "sole source of power"? what retarded comic book are these lines coming from?

    So SS would say that Obama could have committed any act whatsoever to obstruct investigation into the Obama administration wrongdoing regardless of law? Where was SS arguing Obama can do anything he wants to to obstruct any investigation by Congress or obstruct any special prosector Congress appoints. That for any investigation into Hillary crimes or Obama FISA spying or investigation into Eric Holder corruption. It is to say that it would be perfectly appropriate and acceptable for Obama to have his attorney general meet with Hillary's husband bill on a jet on a tarmac to discuss strategy to close an investigation against Hillary. Or it would be perfectly appropriate for Obama to authorize his Sec of State to destroy emails crucial to an investigation, or allow his attorney general to funnel weapons to various Mexican cartels to be used against US law enforcement officers, or on and on ....

    Nixon was impeached not for the Watergate break-in which it was acknowledged he had nothing to do with, but for obstruction of justice after the fact.

    To say it is impossible for a president to obstruct justice is to say it would be perfectly legal for Obama to threaten investigators, bribe jurors, blackmail judges, destroy evidence. Obama would have been fully within his legal rights to threaten judges.
    No, being a political office holder of any level is not license to break the law.

    SS is reaching now reaching the heights of absurdity in the never–ending quest to kneejerk defend all lunacy that is Trump.

    To say there can be no obstruction of justice if the underlying charges are frivolous is to argue that it suddenly become Ok to blackmail judges, intimidate investigators, threaten witnesses, bribe jurors, harass anyone involved all because the subject of the investigation thinks the original underlying charges are frivolous.

    To say there is insufficient evidence of any obstruction is one thing, but to say there is free to commit any obstruction of the legal process or special investigator appointed by Act of Congress simply because one believes the underlying charges are frivolous is Alice in Wonderland mad hatter bizarre stupidity.

    Such argument is asinine and absurd, and has zero basis whatsoever in hundreds of years of American or British jurisprudence. And such an idiotic bizarre world delusion does not suddenly become American jurisprudence just because SS or some other trumpette delusion npc spouts such made up lunacy out of their @$$.



    Last edited by AZJoe; 06-17-2019 at 08:04 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by AZJoe View Post
    "Master and and commander" ? "sole source of power"? what retarded comic book are these lines coming from?
    The Constitution:

    Article II (Article 2 - Executive)

    Section 1

    1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

    You won't find a single word about the FBI or the AG or the DoJ or any other executive agency anywhere in the Constitution.
    Their powers are entirely derived from the President and he is their absolute master.


    Quote Originally Posted by AZJoe View Post
    So SS would say that Obama could have committed any act whatsoever to obstruct investigation into the Obama administration wrongdoing regardless of law?
    Any investigation by the executive branch would have been entirely subject to his whim.

    Quote Originally Posted by AZJoe View Post
    Where was SS arguing Obama can do anything he wants to to obstruct any investigation by Congress or obstruct any special prosector Congress appoints.
    Congress didn't appoint Mueller, the DoJ did, that put Mueller entirely within the President's jurisdiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by AZJoe View Post
    That for any investigation into Hillary crimes or Obama FISA spying or investigation into Eric Holder corruption. It is to say that it would be perfectly appropriate and acceptable for Obama to have his attorney general meet with Hillary's husband bill on a jet on a tarmac to discuss strategy to close an investigation against Hillary.
    If O'Bummer had ordered the investigation by the DoJ closed that would have been within his power but he didn't, the Tarmac meeting is an example of Bill Clinton (who wasn't President any more) obstructing justice and the AG being corrupt.

    Quote Originally Posted by AZJoe View Post
    Or it would be perfectly appropriate for Obama to authorize his Sec of State to destroy emails crucial to an investigation, or allow his attorney general to funnel weapons to various Mexican cartels to be used against US law enforcement officers, or on and on ....
    Both of those are against the law, the President doesn't have the power to order illegal acts.

    Quote Originally Posted by AZJoe View Post
    Nixon was impeached not for the Watergate break-in which it was acknowledged he had nothing to do with, but for obstruction of justice after the fact.

    To say it is impossible for a president to obstruct justice is to say it would be perfectly legal for Obama to threaten investigators, bribe jurors, blackmail judges, destroy evidence. Obama would have been fully within his legal rights to threaten judges.
    No, being a political office holder of any level is not license to break the law.

    SS is reaching now reaching the heights of absurdity in the never–ending quest to kneejerk defend all lunacy that is Trump.

    To say there can be no obstruction of justice if the underlying charges are frivolous is to argue that it suddenly become Ok to blackmail judges, intimidate investigators, threaten witnesses, bribe jurors, harass anyone involved all because the subject of the investigation thinks the original underlying charges are frivolous.
    I never said it was impossible for a President to obstruct justice in any manner, the other two branches of government have their own oversight powers and the President could obstruct them or be guilty of ordering illegal acts but Trump didn't do either of those.

    And I didn't say you can't obstruct justice when the charges are frivolous, I said you can't obstruct justice when the investigation is illegal and the investigation was illegal from start to finish.

    Quote Originally Posted by AZJoe View Post
    To say there is insufficient evidence of any obstruction is one thing, but to say there is free to commit any obstruction of the legal process or special investigator appointed by Act of Congress simply because one believes the underlying charges are frivolous is Alice in Wonderland mad hatter bizarre stupidity.

    Such argument is asinine and absurd, and has zero basis whatsoever in hundreds of years of American or British jurisprudence. And such an idiotic bizarre world delusion does not suddenly become American jurisprudence just because SS or some other trumpette delusion npc spouts such made up lunacy out of their @$$.
    Mueller was NOT appointed by congress, he was appointed by the DoJ and therefore he was within the executive branch and subject to Trump's powers.


    Quote Originally Posted by AZJoe View Post
    You are the one who went full TDS.


    And since you ignored the rest of my post I will repeat it:

    Amash is endorsing the investigation by endorsing the obstruction charges, without the illegal spying, lies and entrapment there would have been no investigation to obstruct.
    If a cop breaks into my house without a warrant and I throw him out am I "obstructing justice"?
    If I find drugs he planted and flush them down the sewer system am I "obstructing" the investigation that happens when he phones in an "anonymous" tip to his department?


    Amash is endorsing the entire treasonous coup and all the illegal spying by twisting the truth to try and provide the criminals with a "happy ending" impeachment that achieves their objective, if he got his way the deepstate would be emboldened to conduct even more illegal spying and domestic coups.
    The fact that his claims of obstruction are so ludicrous makes it clear that he is attempting to finish what the deepstate started but failed to successfully complete.
    It doesn't matter whether he is just foolish and consumed with TDS or whether he is fully complicit.
    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

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by AZJoe View Post
    First, this statement confirms nothing to support that Amash "supports the Deepstate use of FISA fraud".

    Secondly, no, a politician corruptly breaking laws to obstruct justice does not become ok simply because the politicians believes the investigation is corrupt. That like saying its ok to break the law because you are only breaking the law to refute others who broke the law. That's nonsensical and has no foundation in any American law.

    And no opposing subsequent crimes is not endorsement of prior abuse of process. For instance a police officer may hide evidence or destroy evidence of in a case where the defendant actually committed terrible murders. Opposing the corrupt obstruction of justice by the officer after the fact, does not mean you endorse the underlying murders committed by the murderer.

    You may disagree with Amash's position on obstruction based on lack of evidence of obstruction, and that is a proper argument. Much better than making up falsehoods about Amash's position. I have yet to see any sufficient evidence of any obstruction. However that is based on lack of evidence, not because of a belief that politicians should abuse their power in corrupt ways to rig investigations simply because they believe the investigation is corrupt.
    This is correct.

    Amash never sided with the Russian garbage- it was after he actually read the Mueller Report & saw evidence of obstruction on Trump's part that he stepped forward.
    There is no spoon.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    This is correct.

    Amash never sided with the Russian garbage- it was after he actually read the Mueller Report & saw evidence of obstruction on Trump's part that he stepped forward.
    He did jump on the Russiagate garbage:

    Amash on Trump-Putin Press Conference

    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

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by jct74 View Post
    Unlike President Donald Trump, Justin Amash Actually Fights Against FISA Surveillance Abuse

    read more:
    https://reason.com/2019/05/30/unlike...illance-abuse/
    Quote Originally Posted by AZJoe View Post
    The deep state finger puppet Trump, so upset by the FISA abuses against him, that the Idiot-in-Chief wants to make FISA warrantless spying permanent fixture to be abused against Americans for all perpetuity.
    Last edited by AZJoe; 06-18-2019 at 07:32 PM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    And Amash is such a hero that he supports the Deepstate use of FISA fraud against Trump.
    Never did, as explained in prior posts. However the Trump certainly supports the use of the abusive FISA process.
    Donald Trump wants a repeat of the FISA abuses. He not only signed into law to continue the abusive FISA court process against Americans, but even advocated to memorializing the abusive FISA process to be uses permanently against Americans in perpetuity.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    He did jump on the Russiagate garbage:
    Amash on Trump-Putin Press Conference
    Russiagate? Because Amash criticized Trump’s performance for giving the appearance of appearing too deferential to Putin? Amash is completely wrong here in his assessment, but it is no different than the same criticisms that were leveled at Obama for appearing too deferential in his meetings with the Saids, Xi or Putin and others.

    And when it comes to Russiagate hoaxes, Trump ahs fully jumped on the bandwagon of the Russia interfered with the election. Trump simply claims it did not benefit him but it was just to “sew discord”. That’s Trump for you.

    Yeah right, a private click bait farm spent a microscopic $100k on ads (mostly post-election) to garner page clicks to generate ad revenue and Trump endorses such stupidity. And the insignificant click bait ads are to “sew discord?” And sewing discord is somehow supposed to lead to Washington dropping its lies and sanctions military hostilities against Russia and its regimes changes?

    Further the treacherous Trump fully jumped on the Skripalgate accusations. He even expelled scores of diplomats.

    As well Trump ramped up sanctions against Russia. Expanded troops and bases into countries bordering Russia, conducts NATO war games within visual range of Russia’s border, continues Naval and Aerial spying off Russian Coasts and complains when the spy planes and ships get escorted.

    Further the treacherous Trump threatens Germany and the rest Europe not to trade with Russia, to halt the new pipelines and to suffer consequences if it buy Russian gas.

    Trump is bur a legacy of treacherous liar and betrayer. Traitor Trumps record on everything else is also a laundry list of betrayal, lies, stupidity, treachery, spending, debt, escalation, empire, bombs, occupations, failures, wrs, trade wars, and on and on
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    That's the point you keep on missing...where does he talk about the phony dossier? Oh that's right, he doesn't. His silence on that makes him a TOOL for the establishment swamp.
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    That is my point-- he obviously did NOT do his homework to support impeachment of President Trump without looking into the phony dossier--of which Mueller did not bring up. If he did he would see that what Mueller did is circumvent the whole phony dossier that got passed the FISA courts to allow spying.
    Consider the following hypothetical. The FBI wants to take down Guido Sanduchee. (Made up name). They get a wiretap by lie in the process of getting it. During their investigation they don't find anything incriminating on Guido. But, Guido threatens witnesses not to cooperate with the FBI. On that scenario can Guido be prosecuted for obstruction of justice? Why yes. Yes he can. If you commit a crime in order to derail an investigation, even a bogus investigation you can be criminally liable for the act. The fact that the investigation was bogus would have been reason to throw out whatever the investigation itself turned up (in the case it turned up nothing) but it's not a blank check to do whateverthehellyouwant in order to stop the investigation itself.

    That said, Amash did a bonehead move calling for impeachment. There simply aren't the votes in the senate for it, a nothing in the Mueller report, including the "obstruction" claims, is serious enough to get any significant amount of senate republicans to support impeachment. In short, Amash's conclusion on the severity of the obstruction is overblown IMO, but a bogus investigation itself does not preclude criminality stemming from obstruction of justice of that investigation.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Consider the following hypothetical. The FBI wants to take down Guido Sanduchee. (Made up name). They get a wiretap by lie in the process of getting it. During their investigation they don't find anything incriminating on Guido. But, Guido threatens witnesses not to cooperate with the FBI. On that scenario can Guido be prosecuted for obstruction of justice? Why yes. Yes he can. If you commit a crime in order to derail an investigation, even a bogus investigation you can be criminally liable for the act. The fact that the investigation was bogus would have been reason to throw out whatever the investigation itself turned up (in the case it turned up nothing) but it's not a blank check to do whateverthehellyouwant in order to stop the investigation itself.

    That said, Amash did a bonehead move calling for impeachment. There simply aren't the votes in the senate for it, a nothing in the Mueller report, including the "obstruction" claims, is serious enough to get any significant amount of senate republicans to support impeachment. In short, Amash's conclusion on the severity of the obstruction is overblown IMO, but a bogus investigation itself does not preclude criminality stemming from obstruction of justice of that investigation.
    I understand what you are saying but people, such as Amash, have been dealing with a hypothetical crime from the get-go. This investigation was the left's insurance policy to get President Trump out of office. The DNC, Hillary Foundation, Obama and the intelligence community were hoping this hypothetical about Russia would save them.





    My website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    I understand what you are saying but people, such as Amash, have been dealing with a hypothetical crime from the get-go. This investigation was the left's insurance policy to get President Trump out of office. The DNC, Hillary Foundation, Obama and the intelligence community were hoping this hypothetical about Russia would save them.
    None of those videos were of Amash.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    None of those videos were of Amash.
    Correct. That is all about the phony Russia investigation lobbed against President Trump. If you want to know where the "collusion" really is, all you have to do is look at that.

    Amash should have known better. Especially with the fake Steele dossier and FISA abuse against the entire Trump Campaign.
    My website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Correct. That is all about the phony Russia investigation lobbed against President Trump. If you want to know where the "collusion" really is, all you have to do is look at that.

    Amash should have known better. Especially with the fake Steele dossier and FISA abuse against the entire Trump Campaign.
    You said "people like Amash." Amash didn't push the narrative you're talking about. Instead he's position on impeachment is based on actions Trump took after the initiation of the investigation. Again, a bogus investigation itself doesn't give the subject of that investigation a blank check to do whatever afterwards. Once more read over the Guido analogy I gave you. Even if Guido never did a dog gone thing wrong before being investigated by the FBI, if he engaged in witness tampering later, that itself is a crime. Regardless, crime or no crime, this isn't worth impeachment. Bill Clinton perjured himself and while he was impeached he was not removed. No need to start a process that has no chance of "success" because what the president is accused of doing will not win over 2/3rds votes in the senate.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    You said "people like Amash." Amash didn't push the narrative you're talking about. Instead he's position on impeachment is based on actions Trump took after the initiation of the investigation. Again, a bogus investigation itself doesn't give the subject of that investigation a blank check to do whatever afterwards. Once more read over the Guido analogy I gave you. Even if Guido never did a dog gone thing wrong before being investigated by the FBI, if he engaged in witness tampering later, that itself is a crime. Regardless, crime or no crime, this isn't worth impeachment. Bill Clinton perjured himself and while he was impeached he was not removed. No need to start a process that has no chance of "success" because what the president is accused of doing will not win over 2/3rds votes in the senate.
    If Amash is calling for impeachment for alleged obstruction after the phony Russian investigation, then he has been tricked into thinking this was a real investigation. If Amash is so gung-ho about illegal use of FISA, then he obviously wasn't paying attention to this entire witch hunt.
    My website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    If Amash is calling for impeachment for alleged obstruction after the phony Russian investigation, then he has been tricked into thinking this was a real investigation. If Amash is so gung-ho about illegal use of FISA, then he obviously wasn't paying attention to this entire witch hunt.
    No. Once again if there is a phony investigation but someone breaks the law by obstructing justice of that phony investigation that's still a crime. Re-read the Guido example I gave you, this time without thinking about Trump and Amash, and you should be able to see what I'm saying.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Consider the following hypothetical. The FBI wants to take down Guido Sanduchee. (Made up name). They get a wiretap by lie in the process of getting it. During their investigation they don't find anything incriminating on Guido. But, Guido threatens witnesses not to cooperate with the FBI. On that scenario can Guido be prosecuted for obstruction of justice? Why yes. Yes he can. If you commit a crime in order to derail an investigation, even a bogus investigation you can be criminally liable for the act. The fact that the investigation was bogus would have been reason to throw out whatever the investigation itself turned up (in the case it turned up nothing) but it's not a blank check to do whateverthehellyouwant in order to stop the investigation itself.
    An illegal investigation has no authority and is not justice so it is impossible to be guilty of obstructing justice when dealing with it.
    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



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    No. Once again if there is a phony investigation but someone breaks the law by obstructing justice of that phony investigation that's still a crime. Re-read the Guido example I gave you, this time without thinking about Trump and Amash, and you should be able to see what I'm saying.
    I understand your Guido analogy but it doesn't apply to this scenario. Mueller is as corrupt as all the characters I have already talked about in the above posts. You do realize that Mueller was around during 9/11, and was one of the biggest obsticals for that investigation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    An illegal investigation has no authority and is not justice so it is impossible to be guilty of obstructing justice when dealing with it.
    That is correct. There is no collusion with the Russians and never was. What this investigation did was ruin the lives of Flynn, Manafort, Page, Papadopoulos and Stone. Nothing even remotely close to Russian collusion.
    My website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    I understand your Guido analogy but it doesn't apply to this scenario. Mueller is as corrupt as all the characters I have already talked about in the above posts. You do realize that Mueller was around during 9/11, and was one of the biggest obsticals for that investigation.
    Why do you think it doesn't apply? The fact that Guido was subject to a bogus investigation is proof that Guido's investigator was corrupt. The bottom line is that even if you are subject to a bogus investigation by a corrupt investigator doesn't give you carte blanche to do any and everything in response to fight the investigation. At some point there is a line crossed, even in self defense of a bogus investigation, where you have become criminal. Prosecute the corrupt investigator too. I'm not saying Trump crossed that line. But to say the line doesn't even exist is simply not factually true.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    An illegal investigation has no authority and is not justice so it is impossible to be guilty of obstructing justice when dealing with it.
    But if you commit a crime in response to an illegal investigation you can still be held liable for that crime regardless of whether the investigation was illegal or not.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Why do you think it doesn't apply? The fact that Guido was subject to a bogus investigation is proof that Guido's investigator was corrupt. The bottom line is that even if you are subject to a bogus investigation by a corrupt investigator doesn't give you carte blanche to do any and everything in response to fight the investigation. At some point there is a line crossed, even in self defense of a bogus investigation, where you have become criminal. Prosecute the corrupt investigator too. I'm not saying Trump crossed that line. But to say the line doesn't even exist is simply not factually true.
    Yes I understand that. That's why Flynn, Manafort, Page and many others have been charged with crimes not even related to the investigation of Russia.

    Trump was smart not to answer questions with them face to face because he knew they would try to get him on perjury charges like they did Flynn. The other thing I would like to point out is Trump did not use (which he could have like Obama did) Executive Privilege to deny the investigator any things they requested. Trump fully cooperated with them by handing over documents they requested, etc...

    Trump's biggest mistake, at the beginning of this, was putting Jeff Sessions as AG and not firing him after he recused himself from the Russia investigation.
    My website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  27. #53
    Not surprisingly, the hypocrites voted down Justin's FISA amendment:



    But yeah, he's a leftist for saying mean things about Trump.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    But if you commit a crime in response to an illegal investigation you can still be held liable for that crime regardless of whether the investigation was illegal or not.
    Yes but you can't commit the crime of obstruction of justice in relation to an illegal investigation, any other crime you commit you can be charged for.
    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

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes but you can't commit the crime of obstruction of justice in relation to an illegal investigation, any other crime you commit you can be charged for.
    If you bribe a witness, threaten a witness, bribe a judge, threaten a judge, bribe a juror, threaten a juror, even if that is in relation to an illegal investigation it is still a crime and you can and should be punished for it. That said, I haven't been convinced that Trump did any of that but then I haven't read the Mueller report either.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Yes I understand that. That's why Flynn, Manafort, Page and many others have been charged with crimes not even related to the investigation of Russia.

    Trump was smart not to answer questions with them face to face because he knew they would try to get him on perjury charges like they did Flynn. The other thing I would like to point out is Trump did not use (which he could have like Obama did) Executive Privilege to deny the investigator any things they requested. Trump fully cooperated with them by handing over documents they requested, etc...

    Trump's biggest mistake, at the beginning of this, was putting Jeff Sessions as AG and not firing him after he recused himself from the Russia investigation.
    I agree wholeheartedly. Trump's best adviser in all of this has been Rudy Giuliani. Rudy refused all requests from Trump to be interviewed by investigators. Rudy would have squashed the whole Stormy Daniels thing earlier than it was if Trump had kept his mouth shut. But lucky for Trump, Stormy Daniels lawyer was a slime himself and that all imploded.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 37
    Last Post: 07-17-2017, 01:04 PM
  2. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-20-2017, 02:20 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-07-2016, 07:36 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-29-2016, 04:57 PM
  5. FAIR: Ron Paul Is Not a 'Serious' Candidate--Unlike Donald Trump
    By sailingaway in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-27-2011, 05:16 PM

Posting Permissions

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