Amash is at it again

[jmdrake]

I was a huge defender of Justin Amash until he wiped his ass with the fourth amendment by supporting impeachment over an abuse of the fourth amendment. I would of helped him run for re-election and donated to his campaign if he didn't openly encourage FISA abuses against polical opponents of the deepstate by giving this report credibility. I was a huge fan of JA until he did this, it was a gutpunch to me when he did this, I regret ever supporting him.

These are two separate issues. Like I told @Swordsmyth.

Also, to be honest the "fruit from a poisonous tree" doctrine doesn't apply to obstruction. That's a crime committed after the start of an investigation. In a regular criminal proceeding if police found evidence against you from a bogus investigation (such as actual evidence of collusion with the Russians in witness tampering) that evidence would be squashed. But evidence that you tampered with witnesses during the investigation would not be squashed. So...technically in a real criminal proceeding, Trump could be held liable for obstruction even based on a phony FISA warrant. But, like I said, this isn't really a criminal proceeding.

If the government goes after you without probable cause, any evidence of a crime committed prior to the start of the investigation that they uncover as a result of the 4th amendment violation is not admissible. But if you commit new crimes in an effort to stymie the investigation, those can be prosecuted without violating the 4th amendment. That said, Donald Trump has "wiped his ass" on the 4th amendment by going after Assange and Manning, among other things, and he's "wiped his ass" on the second amendment over the bumpfire stock ban and you've defended him and called those who stand up against Trump's violations of the 4th and 2nd amendment "Bernie Sanders." By your own measure you are the biggest Bernie Sanders on the forum.

[jmdrake]

Name one socialist country that has gun rights.

And ^this is proof that you, Nikcers, are the socialist. You defended Trump's bumpfire stock ban even though you know that gun control is a hallmark of socialism.

[nikcers]

These are two separate issues. Like I told @Swordsmyth.

Also, to be honest the "fruit from a poisonous tree" doctrine doesn't apply to obstruction. That's a crime committed after the start of an investigation. In a regular criminal proceeding if police found evidence against you from a bogus investigation (such as actual evidence of collusion with the Russians in witness tampering) that evidence would be squashed. But evidence that you tampered with witnesses during the investigation would not be squashed. So...technically in a real criminal proceeding, Trump could be held liable for obstruction even based on a phony FISA warrant. But, like I said, this isn't really a criminal proceeding.

If the government goes after you without probable cause, any evidence of a crime committed prior to the start of the investigation that they uncover as a result of the 4th amendment violation is not admissible. But if you commit new crimes in an effort to stymie the investigation, those can be prosecuted without violating the 4th amendment. That said, Donald Trump has "wiped his ass" on the 4th amendment by going after Assange and Manning, among other things, and he's "wiped his ass" on the second amendment over the bumpfire stock ban and you've defended him and called those who stand up against Trump's violations of the 4th and 2nd amendment "Bernie Sanders." By your own measure you are the biggest Bernie Sanders on the forum.

If you support the democrats insurance policy against losing you are effectively supporting the democrats and encouraging them to do this again. I don't give a $#@! why you justify it, you are wrong.

[jmdrake]

If you support the democrats insurance policy against losing you are effectively supporting the democrats and encouraging them to do this again. I don't give a $#@! why you justify it, you are wrong.

You don't give a crap about the constitution? I know. You have shown that by your disgusting socialist defense of Donald Trump's assault on the second amendment!

[nikcers]

And ^this is proof that you, Nikcers, are the socialist. You defended Trump's bumpfire stock ban even though you know that gun control is a hallmark of socialism.

You don't even deny that hurting Trumps chance at winning the election helps the democratic socialist platform win the election?

[nikcers]

You don't give a crap about the constitution? I know. You have shown that by your disgusting socialist defense of Donald Trump's assault on the second amendment!

So you think that helping the democrats win by attacking their opposition doesn't help the democrats win? Are you stupid?

[jmdrake]

You don't even deny that hurting Trumps chance at winning the election helps the democratic socialist platform win the election?

You don't deny that the 2nd amendment is our last, best defense against tyranny? You would sacrifice the 2nd amendment on the alter of bootlicking for Donald Trump? You are that much of a coward?

[jmdrake]

So you think that helping the democrats win by attacking their opposition doesn't help the democrats win? Are you stupid?

You have already admitted that I am more intelligent than you. So if I'm stupid....

[nikcers]

You don't deny that the 2nd amendment is our last, best defense against tyranny? You would sacrifice the 2nd amendment on the alter of bootlicking for Donald Trump? You are that much of a coward?

No the best defense against tyranny is not to support the 4 out of 10 Americans that want to install tyranny by attacking their opposition.

[nikcers]

You have already admitted that I am more intelligent than you. So if I'm stupid....

No i admited that you know more about legal jargon than I do. You are more educated than I am at legal jargon, education does not equal intelligence.

[Superfluous Man]

What's Justin Amash's position on impeachment of Trump over the Mueller report? I shouldn't have to prove your point for you.

So you haven't been able to find a quote then?

Maybe you should refrain from accusing him of things without evidence to support your accusation.

[nikcers]

So you haven't been able to find a quote then?

Maybe you should refrain from accusing him of things without evidence to support your accusation.

So you can't prove your own argument? Maybe you should shut up than.

[jmdrake]

No the best defense against tyranny is not to support the 4 out of 10 Americans that want to install tyranny by attacking their opposition.

Justin Amash is in more of an opponent to tyranny than is Donald Trump. That said, your infantile, churlish, retarded "We can't criticize Trump for anything he does because...the democrats" position isn't shared by anyone else. It's not shared by @AntiFederalist. It's not shared by @Swordsmyth. And your position is just....stupid. There is no independent out there who's going to say "Hmmmm......I like Trump better than the democrats....but I'm going to vote for Kamala Harris because of the bumpfire stock ban." That's not going to happen. If you had the brains of that chicken in the picture in your profile you would know that. Now, what can happen if Trump doesn't get pushback on the bumpfire stock ban? He could say "Hmmmm....I might win over a few more people who support gun control if I go further to the left on this issue." So..the betrayal continues.

[jmdrake]

Please provide a quote from Amash supporting FISA abuses or supporting impeachment over abuse of the 4th Amendment.

These are two separate issues. Like I told @Swordsmyth.

Also, to be honest the "fruit from a poisonous tree" doctrine doesn't apply to obstruction. That's a crime committed after the start of an investigation. In a regular criminal proceeding if police found evidence against you from a bogus investigation (such as actual evidence of collusion with the Russians in witness tampering) that evidence would be squashed. But evidence that you tampered with witnesses during the investigation would not be squashed. So...technically in a real criminal proceeding, Trump could be held liable for obstruction even based on a phony FISA warrant. But, like I said, this isn't really a criminal proceeding.

If the government goes after you without probable cause, any evidence of a crime committed prior to the start of the investigation that they uncover as a result of the 4th amendment violation is not admissible. But if you commit new crimes in an effort to stymie the investigation, those can be prosecuted without violating the 4th amendment. That said, Donald Trump has "wiped his ass" on the 4th amendment by going after Assange and Manning, among other things, and he's "wiped his ass" on the second amendment over the bumpfire stock ban and you've defended him and called those who stand up against Trump's violations of the 4th and 2nd amendment "Bernie Sanders." By your own measure you are the biggest Bernie Sanders on the forum.

So you haven't been able to find a quote then?

Maybe you should refrain from accusing him of things without evidence to support your accusation.

So you can't prove your own argument? Maybe you should shut up than.

I already proved Superflous Man's argument and you said you didn't care about the constitution.

[nikcers]

Justin Amash is in more of an opponent to tyranny than is Donald Trump. That said, your infantile, churlish, retarded "We can't criticize Trump for anything he does because...the democrats" position isn't shared by anyone else. It's not shared by @AntiFederalist. It's not shared by @Swordsmyth. And your position is just....stupid. There is no independent out there who's going to say "Hmmmm......I like Trump better than the democrats....but I'm going to vote for Kamala Harris because of the bumpfire stock ban." That's not going to happen. If you had the brains of that chicken in the picture in your profile you would know that. Now, what can happen if Trump doesn't get pushback on the bumpfire stock ban? He could say "Hmmmm....I might win over a few more people who support gun control if I go further to the left on this issue." So..the betrayal continues.

Justin Amash couldn't even win the presidency so how could he ever be more of an opponent to tyranny than Trump?

[nikcers]

I already proved Superflous Man's argument and you said you didn't care about the constitution.

Really so you have a quote or statement from JA that says he doesn't support impeachment of Trump over the Mueller report? Or are you just lying too?

[jmdrake]

I already implied you were right, you don't have to make me feel even more stupid.

No i admited that you know more about legal jargon than I do. You are more educated than I am at legal jargon, education does not equal intelligence.

[jmdrake]

Really so you have a quote or statement from JA that says he doesn't support impeachment of Trump over the Mueller report? Or are you just lying too?

I already explained that one can be against the unconstitutional way the investigation started and still support impeachment for crimes committed after the investigation and with the intent of thwarting the investigation. That you are too stupid to understand the "legal jargon" doesn't make me a liar.

[nikcers]

its a figure of speech, are you even American? Usually only non Americans don't understand figures of speech.

[jmdrake]

its a figure of speech, are you even American? Usually only non Americans don't understand figures of speech.

[Superfluous Man]

So you can't prove your own argument? Maybe you should shut up than.

My claim is that you are accusing Amash of supporting 4th Amendment violations and FISA abuses without any evidence for your charge. Since you have already proven that for me, I can rest my case.

What I don't get is why you even keep saying it, given that you obviously don't even have any reason to believe it's true.

Is it because you're just mindlessly repeating what some other Trumpkin told you to think? We have a lot of that around here.

[nikcers]

I already explained that one can be against the unconstitutional way the investigation started and still support impeachment for crimes committed after the investigation and with the intent of thwarting the investigation. That you are too stupid to understand the "legal jargon" doesn't make me a liar.

You actually believe the contents of the report are true thats the worst aspect of your whole opinion on this, and if that is his opinion he deserves to lose his seat. Do you believe Iran is behind the attack on those tankers too?

[nikcers]

My claim is that you are accusing Amash of supporting 4th Amendment violations and FISA abuses without any evidence for your charge. Since you have already proven that for me, I can rest my case.

What I don't get is why you even keep saying it, given that you obviously don't even have any reason to believe it's true.

Is it because you're just mindlessly repeating what some other Trumpkin told you to think? We have a lot of that around here.

This is Rand Paul's opinion, its not a Trumpkin opinon, this is the liberty position.

[Superfluous Man]

This is Rand Paul's opinion, its not a Trumpkin opinon, this is the liberty position.

Please provide a quote from Rand accusing Amash of supporting 4th Amendment violations or FISA abuses.

[nikcers]

Why do you call me a Trumpkin when I am clearly a Rand Paulbot?

[Superfluous Man]

Why do you call me a Trumpkin when I am clearly a Rand Paulbot?

That is not clear to me at all. But go back and reread what I said. I didn't actually call you a Trumpkin. I gave you a chance to prove whether you were or not, and so far, you're not making a good case that you aren't.

[jmdrake]

its a figure of speech, are you even American? Usually only non Americans don't understand figures of speech.

Part of intelligence is knowing what you don't know. You keep trying to delve into arguing "legal jargon" with someone who knows the law, and yes the constitution is a legal document more than you do. Rather than trying to actually understand the argument, you resort to the most inane ad hominems you can come up with. I'm a "liar" or a "Bernie Sanders supporter" or just "mean" because I happen to know what I'm talking about and you don't. You are parroting talking points that you clearly have know idea what they actually mean and you think by repeating them often enough and with enough vigor, vitality and venom you can somehow make your false arguments true. Newsflash, they're still false.

One more time, if the police raid your home based on a fake warrant, whatever they find while executing that warrant is inadmissible. But that doesn't give you a blanket license to tamper with witnesses or do other obstructions of justice. If you do, you can be prosecuted and that is not a fourth amendment violation. And for the umpteenth time, I do not support impeachment. But this claim that Amash has somehow gone against the 4th amendment because he correctly sees this as two different issues is ridiculous.

[jmdrake]

You actually believe the contents of the report are true thats the worst aspect of your whole opinion on this, and if that is his opinion he deserves to lose his seat. Do you believe Iran is behind the attack on those tankers too?

I already said I don't support impeachment. I haven't even bothered reading the freaking Muller report. I'm simply explaining to you how the 4th amendment actually works. You don't understand "legal jargon" remember?

[jmdrake]

Why do you call me a Trumpkin when I am clearly a Rand Paulbot?

Rand Paul doesn't support the bumpfire stock ban nor think it was justified to "take away a democratic talking point."

[nikcers]

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

RAND PAUL: Libertarians like myself for a long time said the intelligence community has too much power. We're very concerned that the CIA or FBI could be investigating Americans for political purposes. That has long been our complaint. I don't understand a libertarian who would take the investigation and say we should pursue it and impeach the president.