Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 104 of 104

Thread: Amash Statement at Impeachment Debate

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleaner44 View Post
    Amash is wrong. Investigating the crimes of Joe Biden is for the benefit of the United States of America.

    Joe Biden is not running against Donald Trump. Biden is running against Sander, Warren and 20 other Democrats. Biden doesn't have the opportunity to run against Trump unless he first wins the nomination of the Democrat party.
    To me this is the best answer. Does anyone believe that Biden is Trump's likely opposition? It is worse than calling Jeb Bush the front runner. MSN keeps saying Biden is the front runner and I keep thinking in what universe?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Working Poor View Post
    To me this is the best answer. Does anyone believe that Biden is Trump's likely opposition? It is worse than calling Jeb Bush the front runner. MSN keeps saying Biden is the front runner and I keep thinking in what universe?
    The left wants to claim immunity from investigation for all politicians, they are starting with those running for office but if they get away with it they will expand it to all politicians.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Please cite where a "misdemeanor" is defined and where what qualifies as one is listed.
    There was a common legal understanding of this phrase when the Constitution was written. I'm not going to bother explaining it to you, the information is already in this thread.

    Next you'll be telling us the Commerce clause actually means the government has been granted the power to regulate in the sense that we understand the word now. Or that the Second Amendment says you need to be in a militia have the right to bear arms.

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    Well, yes, because Trump deserves support in this unconstitutional cluster$#@!.
    If only there were someone who consistently voted constitutionally. Someone who votes against the FISA court, warrantless surveillance, all that kind of stuff.

    Apparently, that red pill some us bragged about taking was GOPoision.


  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    If only there were someone who consistently voted constitutionally. Someone who votes against the FISA court, warrantless surveillance, all that kind of stuff.

    Apparently, that red pill some us bragged about taking was GOPoision.

    Rand is right on the Constitution here and Amash is voting to destroy it.

    Amash is the one who swallowed poison.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    There was a common legal understanding of this phrase when the Constitution was written. I'm not going to bother explaining it to you, the information is already in this thread.

    Next you'll be telling us the Commerce clause actually means the government has been granted the power to regulate in the sense that we understand the word now. Or that the Second Amendment says you need to be in a militia have the right to bear arms.
    Alexander Levine's explanation according to British avatar poster and Yahoo is what you're referring to, I assume. Where's TJ's? I dismiss all things Alexander Levine out-of-hand, as he was a British agent in favor of authoritarian central government. Btw, I sorta take note when NYC Broadway pays excessive homage to a "Founder". That's a clue that $#@! ain't what it seems to be....
    "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. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Alexander Levine's explanation according to British avatar poster and Yahoo is what you're referring to, I assume. Where's TJ's? I dismiss all things Alexander Levine out-of-hand, as he was a British agent in favor of authoritarian central government. Btw, I sorta take note when NYC Broadway pays excessive homage to a "Founder". That's a clue that $#@! ain't what it seems to be....
    You are the one arguing for an authoritarian Congress in spite of the wording of the Constitution.

    I take it that you missed post #90?


    This short essay does what the House Judiciary Committee’s panel of “expert witnesses” did not successfully do.
    First, it explains the meaning of the Constitution’s “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” standard. Next, it discusses how that standard applies to President Donald Trump’s interactions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Finally, it details the kind of evidence the House Judiciary Committee should gather to determine whether the president committed an impeachable offense.
    Many phrases in the Constitution—such as “necessary and proper,” “Privileges and Immunities,” and “Convention for proposing Amendments”—carry specialized 18th century meanings not obvious to the modern reader. Recall that most of the leading Founders were lawyers and the Constitution is a legal document. Some of these phrases derive from 18th century law.

    Therefore, to understand them you have to consult 18th century legal materials in addition to better-known sources such as the 1787 convention debates or the Federalist Papers.
    Unfortunately, most of the scholars called by the House Judiciary Committee to address the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” were not able to do so accurately.
    According to the authoritative Westlaw database, two of the three Democratically appointed witnesses have published no scholarly work on impeachment: Their specialties are in other areas. None showed any familiarity with 18th century fiduciary standards—which (as explained below) are part of the law of impeachment. All of the witnesses voted against President Trump, and several have been involved in anti-Trump activity.
    It’s not surprising, therefore, that, except for professor Jonathan Turley’s heavily footnoted 53-page written statement, the testimony was biased and superficial.

    What Is the Standard?

    Impeachment law is not for amateurs. It rests on English parliamentary history extending at least as far back as the 1300s. Furthermore, impeachment standards evolved over time. To understand the Constitution’s rules we must know what the standards were when the Constitution was adopted. We can do so by consulting 18th century parliamentary records and legal materials.
    Here’s some of what they tell us:


    • The term “high Crimes” means, approximately, “felonies.”
    • The phrase “high … Misdemeanors” refers to what the founding generation called “breach of trust” and what modern lawyers call breach of fiduciary duty. Fiduciary duties are the legal obligations imposed upon those who manage the affairs of other people—bankers, corporate executives, accountants, guardians, and so forth. In broad outline, fiduciary law when the Constitution was adopted was similar to what it is today.
    • In the 14th and 15th centuries, an official could be impeached because Parliament disagreed with his policy decisions. However, as several American Founders recognized, by the 18th century this was no longer true. The official must have violated (in the words of several sources) “the known and established law.” This limited impeachment to serious crimes and fiduciary breaches.
    • The trial in the upper house of the legislature was a judicial proceeding, not primarily a political one. As the 1782 edition of the popular Jacob’s Law Dictionary noted, “the same evidence is required in an impeachment in Parliament, as in the ordinary courts of justice.” The hearsay and impressionist evidence gathered by the House Intelligence Committee is not admissible.


    The core of the case against President Trump is that he used his political position to seek re-election assistance from a foreign government. Although there’s dark talk of crimes committed, the principal charge is fiduciary rather than criminal. In other words, a “high … Misdemeanor.”
    House Democrats have struggled to define Trump’s alleged offense. Initially, they described it as “quid pro quo.” Then they employed the term “bribery.” The legally correct designation is “self-dealing.”
    Self-dealing is betraying your employer’s interests to enrich yourself. It’s a violation of the fiduciary duty of loyalty.
    We can assume the president might benefit from a Ukrainian investigation, but that doesn’t mean asking for an investigation was self-dealing as defined by fiduciary, and therefore by impeachment, law. There’s nothing unusual or improper about a president asking a recipient of U.S. foreign aid to address corruption. As for seeking political advantage: If we punished every politician who did that, they would all be swinging from the yardarm.
    This is as true in foreign as in domestic affairs. When President Barack Obama told the Russian president he would have more flexibility after his re-election, he was saying (1) an agreement now would benefit both Russia and the United States, but (2) I’m going to sacrifice our mutual interests for the present because such an agreement might hurt my re-election campaign. Was this impeachable self-dealing? Almost certainly not.
    So where is the divide between “normal” conduct and impeachable conduct? To answer this, we need to weigh at least three factors: impeachment precedent, the national interest, and the practice of other presidents.
    Impeachable Conduct

    For defining the Constitution’s phase “high … Misdemeanors,” the most important precedents (although not the only ones) lie in 18th century impeachment and fiduciary law.
    An 18th century impeachment treatise outlines the specific facts by which several officials were impeached for what we now call self-dealing.
    They include the following:
    (1) the official enriched himself at the expense of the Crown by arranging for royal pardons,
    (2) he stole funds from the Royal Navy,
    (3) he confiscated ships and cargos without due process and appropriated the proceeds,
    (4) he obtained “exorbitant grants of lands and money, to the great detriment of the revenue,”
    (5) he seized forfeited land that should have gone to the Crown, and
    (6) acting through a strawman, he took the proceeds from timber sales in the king’s forests.
    All these cases boil down to stealing public property. They don’t look like the Trump–Zelensky dealings at all.
    Another part of the answer lies in whether President Trump violated the national interest. As a general rule, self-dealing generally is not just enriching yourself. It’s enriching yourself at the expense of your employer. If Trump’s interests were aligned with those of the country, there was no fiduciary breach.
    Despite Col. Alexander Vindman’s complaint that Trump violated “the consensus of the interagency,” the question of whether Trump acted contrary to the national interest is a difficult one to answer.
    Perhaps we had a national interest in not asking President Zelensky to investigate. But we also had a national interest in asking, because it would be useful to know if Ukrainian officials were trying to meddle in our presidential elections. And it would be useful to know whether the family of a leading presidential candidate is engaged in corruption. Remember: the president asked only for an investigation, not for a pre-determined result.


    Thus, you can argue the “national interest” issue both ways. It looks more a policy question than a clear case like theft of public funds.
    Still another part of the answer lies in how similar officials act in similar circumstances. In absence of a crime, if you want to determine whether a banker handled funds properly, you should investigate how bankers usually handle funds. If you wish to determine whether an investment adviser gave reasonable advice, you should consult what other reputable advisers recommend in the same circumstances.
    Similarly, to decide whether President Trump engaged in impermissible self-dealing, we need testimony about how other officials conduct themselves. We know, for example, that then-Vice President Biden explicitly made aid to Ukraine conditional on firing a Ukrainian prosecutor. If that conduct wasn’t impeachable (and I don’t believe it was) then Trump’s more tepid conduct certainly isn’t impeachable.
    Thus, the Judiciary Committee should ask for testimony from officials of prior presidential administrations, and preferably from the former presidents themselves. Did they ever make foreign aid conditional? What were the conditions? Why? And so forth.
    Another Panel

    It was a good idea to empanel academic experts to provide guidance on the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It should be done again, and this time correctly.
    The next panel should include presidential historians, parliamentary historians, and experts on fiduciary law. It should not consist primarily of law professors, who are notorious for engaging more in advocacy than in true scholarship.
    Every panelist should have published research on impeachment, fiduciary law, or related areas. No panelist should be enmeshed in pro-Trump or anti-Trump political activity. They should be limited to discussing constitutional impeachment standards without expostulating on evidentiary testimony. Weighing the evidence is the job of the committee members, not of academics with little judicial or “real life” experience.
    Once the scholarly panel has testified, the committee should explore whether the president’s Ukrainian actions clearly violated the national interest and it should gather testimony on the conduct of former administrations in comparable situations.
    And only if all those investigations support a “self-dealing” conclusion should the committee recommend articles of impeachment.


    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...eachment-didnt
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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. #98
    Amash missed the fake dossier (paid for by Hillary Clinton) on Trump and four fake FISA requests I guess.
    My website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

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

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    I'm confused. Did I say he was? Please try a bit harder to stay on topic.

    And if Trump is so horribly unconstitutional, why can't Amash come up with something a little better than supporting an impeachment cuz orange man bad?
    I think Justin is well aware of the many other impeachable acts Trump has committed.

    Amash just trashed separation of powers and supported a move that sets precedent that any opposition party holding a majority in the house can impeach a duly elected POTUS just cause.
    Oh no, the poor President Man might have to be more accountable to the majority House chamber.

    I doubt it though.

    Other than fringe democrats, impeachment was never a serious consideration until the Mueller report. And then even moreso with Trump's Ukraine actions.

    Those don't sound like the actions of a man who believes in the Constitution. Sounds like someone with a chip on their shoulder.
    What does that mean? Did Trump promise Amash something and didn't give it to him? Yeah, Amash doesn't think Trump is a good president. List 3 reasons why he should.
    Support Justin Amash for Congress
    Michigan Congressional District 3

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Rand is right on the Constitution here and Amash is voting to destroy it.

    Amash is the one who swallowed poison.
    Hyperbole much? The constitution isn't destroyed by the impeachment of Trump any more than it was destroyed by the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.
    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.

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by EBounding View Post
    I think Justin is well aware of the many other impeachable acts Trump has committed.
    Impeaching him for the garbage charges that were brought helps to further insulate Trump for any actual impeachable offenses and further shreds the Constitution and the rule of law.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Hyperbole much? The constitution isn't destroyed by the impeachment of Trump any more than it was destroyed by the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.
    That would only be because the impeachments fail.

    Amash is doing his best to make it succeed.
    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 mankindÖitís people I canít 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

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    If only there were someone who consistently voted constitutionally. Someone who votes against the FISA court, warrantless surveillance, all that kind of stuff.

    Apparently, that red pill some us bragged about taking was GOPoision.


    Maybe if Amash got off his self-righteous high horse and actually used the precious talking time he had to educate the public on real impeachable offenses according to his alleged libertarian position, then this thread would not exist.

  16. #104
    Seems Amash made it to the list of dangerklowns.

    So far as I can tell, Trump has yet to do anything worthy of impeachment. Amash seems to have taken one too many in the backhole. PLONK



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234


Similar Threads

  1. Amash says he will vote in favor of articles of impeachment
    By donnay in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 12-13-2019, 05:37 PM
  2. Amash is Wrong, Pelosi (So FarÖ) is Right on Articles of Impeachment
    By Brian4Liberty in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 05-28-2019, 05:08 PM
  3. Amash Supports Impeachment if Trump Pardoned Himself
    By EBounding in forum Justin Amash Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-16-2018, 09:51 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-03-2012, 01:16 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-10-2007, 02:42 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
  •