Amash is saying Trump has engaged in an impeachable offense

[nikcers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OPcMnyPCNY

[Swordsmyth]

What's with you, lately? Questioning some of Trump's actions on this whole mess, is NOT siding with the Clintons.

None of us believe the Russian BS- but that doesn't mean that all of Trump's responses/actions were appropriate or legal for a POTUS. Amash believes they should be looked into. If it was Hillary in the exact same situation, y'all would be screaming for it.

That's garbage and Amash isn't saying they should be looked into (they have been looked into and nothing was found) he is calling for impeachment over bogus charges.
If this was Hitlery I would be screaming for her impeachment over REAL crimes, like the REAL crimes O'Bummer committed and Amash never called for impeachment over.

[fcreature]

What's with you, lately? Questioning some of Trump's actions on this whole mess, is NOT siding with the Clintons.

None of us believe the Russian BS- but that doesn't mean that all of Trump's responses/actions were appropriate or legal for a POTUS. Amash believes they should be looked into. If it was Hillary in the exact same situation, y'all would be screaming for it.

Seems to me there is a big difference between "looking into" things and calling for impeachment. I'd think if Amash wanted things to be looked into, that's what he would have said...

[Ender]

Seems to me there is a big difference between "looking into" things and calling for impeachment. I'd think if Amash wanted things to be looked into, that's what he would have said...

Amash was happy when it looked like the investigation was over & Trump was cleared- then he read the actual report.

Try it.

[fcreature]

Amash was happy when it looked like the investigation was over & Trump was cleared- then he read the actual report.

Try it.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said, but okay, I guess that means you agree - Amash would have said this needs looking into if that is what he meant.

Also, I've read the report. But unlike either you or Amash, I've closely followed the details of this case and have read a lot more than Andrew Weissmann's one-sided, fabricated smear that is the "Mueller Report".

That's how I know Amash is full of $#@!.

[Swordsmyth]

Amash was happy when it looked like the investigation was over & Trump was cleared- then he read the actual report.

Try it.

What Amash points to as "impeachable offenses" is garbage.

[Swordsmyth]

@Ender try and debate the points made about the "Impeachable offenses".

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


https://libertyconservativenews.com/...tion-argument/

[TER]

https://mobile.twitter.com/dcexamine...69545938980864

Breaking news: Amash quits House Freedom Caucus

[sylcfh]

Trump is reducing welfare to citizens and invaders and our economy alone is sufficient incentive to keep the invaders coming here and turning us into a communist country.

How? By increasing the size of the federal government as much as Obama and Bush did?

[Swordsmyth]

How? By increasing the size of the federal government as much as Obama and Bush did?

Migrants are forgoing welfare benefits out of fear of Trump’s proposed Visa rules

New HUD rule prevents illegals from getting public housing assistance

Infuriating Democrats, Trump Plans To Redefine Poverty, Cutting Americans From Welfare

[enhanced_deficit]

This dangerous trend is spreading unfortunately:


https://twitter.com/davidmweissman/s...55525569732609

David Weissman, an Army veteran with more than 80,000 Twitter followers, tweeted. "I was really an idiot to think he would be a good president."

[Swordsmyth]

This dangerous trend is spreading unfortunately:


https://twitter.com/davidmweissman/s...55525569732609

No it isn't.

[fcreature]

I wonder if clown Amash who claims to have "read the Mueller Report" will bother reading this?

https://www.realclearinvestigations....ng_claims.html

Just a snippet:

But a close examination of the report shows that none of those headline assertions are supported by the report’s evidence or other publicly available sources. They are further undercut by investigative shortcomings and the conflicts of interest of key players involved:

The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.
The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.
U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.

[Swordsmyth]

Amash doubles down on call for Trump impeachment

[Swordsmyth]

Highlights for those who didn’t watch the Liberty Report. Around the 6:30 mark:
So this is a this is a coup, there's no other way of describing it.

The TDS brigade will avoid noticing that no matter what mental gymnastics are required.

Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.

[cruzrulez]

The TDS brigade will avoid noticing that no matter what mental gymnastics are required.

Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.

yup. wonder why

[r3volution 3.0]

The TDS brigade will avoid noticing that no matter what mental gymnastics are required.

Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.
Amash JOINED THE COUP.

A coup isn't defined as "people talking about impeaching an official as permitted by law," obviously.

Of course, calling that a coup riles up the base, which is the purpose.

It's the same as the Dems insisting that Trump's a literal Russian agent.

...much sexier than the truth.

[Swordsmyth]

A coup isn't defined as "people talking about impeaching an official as permitted by law," obviously.

Of course, calling that a coup riles up the base, which is the purpose.

It's the same as the Dems insisting that Trump's a literal Russian agent.

...much sexier than the truth.

Lying and trumping up false charges with an illegal investigation in order to overthrow the duly elected President is a coup.

The TDS brigade will avoid noticing that no matter what mental gymnastics are required.

[r3volution 3.0]

Lying and trumping up false charges with an illegal investigation in order to overthrow the duly elected President is a coup.

The TDS brigade will avoid noticing that no matter what mental gymnastics are required.

...or this is just normal partisan tomfuckery,

...Trump's just a normal politician, not a super secret enemy of the deep state,

...and the titanic struggle for the soul of the republic exists only in the minds of GOP media consumers.

[Anti Federalist]

So why did Amash vote in favor of "tabling" the impeachment bill, which is effectively a vote killing it?

Was all this sound and fury, signifying nothing?

Seems to me, if this was such an important issue to you, you would have voted to at least continue the process.

[devil21]

Lying and trumping up false charges with an illegal investigation in order to overthrow the duly elected President is a coup.

The TDS brigade will avoid noticing that no matter what mental gymnastics are required.

Wait, y'all are still fighting over what 9/11 co-conspirators Mueller, Giuliani, AG Barr and other swamp dwellers say on the teevee? It was mildly entertaining for a moment but it's time to move on to the next episode.


^^^^^^^

...and the titanic struggle for the soul of the republic exists only in the minds of GOP media consumers.

[loveshiscountry]

Lying and trumping up false charges with an illegal investigation in order to overthrow the duly elected President is a coup.

The TDS brigade will avoid noticing that no matter what mental gymnastics are required.

Amash isn't lying and trumping up false charges about obstruction. Was the collusion fake? Yes it was. The obstruction isn't which is what Amash is making it about. Could that obstruction be insignificant? Yes it could be but it isn't made up.

[loveshiscountry]

So why did Amash vote in favor of "tabling" the impeachment bill, which is effectively a vote killing it?

Was all this sound and fury, signifying nothing?

Seems to me, if this was such an important issue to you, you would have voted to at least continue the process.

Because that would make the agenda false. We can't have that. How in the world can we throw one of the best defenders of the Constitution and rights of the individual under the bus if we don't make things up?

Can you imagine fighting with these cut and run pussies in a battle?

[Swordsmyth]

Amash isn't lying and trumping up false charges about obstruction. Was the collusion fake? Yes it was. The obstruction isn't which is what Amash is making it about. Could that obstruction be insignificant? Yes it could be but it isn't made up.

There is NO obstruction, it's totally a lie.

[Swordsmyth]

Because that would make the agenda false. We can't have that. How in the world can we throw one of the best defenders of the Constitution and rights of the individual under the bus if we don't make things up?

Can you imagine fighting with these cut and run pussies in a battle?

I can imagine Amash shooting allies in the back.

[loveshiscountry]

I can imagine Amash shooting allies in the back.

lol Yea I believe you would believe that.

[loveshiscountry]

There is NO obstruction, it's totally a lie.

Well of course there isn't. Trump not the kind of person to fight back. We all know he's the type to sit back and let the cards fall where they may. sarcasm x 1 million

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

To be clear, obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime.

[Swordsmyth]

Well of course there isn't. Trump not the kind of person to fight back. We all know he's the type to sit back and let the cards fall where they may. sarcasm x 1 million

Fighting back isn't obstruction.

Nothing Trump did was obstruction.

[loveshiscountry]

Fighting back isn't obstruction.

Nothing Trump did was obstruction.

By repeating your statements and not responding to what I've posted it somehow becomes your truth?

Again- Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Why don't you explain to everyone here what you know. What the report doesn't tell us? You seem to know but for some reason wont share with others.


Can you imagine fighting with these cut and run pussies in a battle?

The best thing about what Amash is doing is the same ones who are lost are not throwing Rand under the bus and writing him off. Too busy cutting and running from Amash to screw up another conservative. Granted the wind will blow next week and the emotional, irrational, "defenders of Liberty" will shriek about something else.

All day.

[Swordsmyth]

By repeating your statements and not responding to what I've posted it somehow becomes your truth?

Again- Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Why don't you explain to everyone here what you know. What the report doesn't tell us? You seem to know but for some reason wont share with others.


Can you imagine fighting with these cut and run pussies in a battle?

All day.

Don't insult my intelligence, not only is it not the place of a prosecutor to exonerate but failure to exonerate doesn't prove obstruction and Mueller is a lying scumbag.

How about you commit yourself to identifying an obstructive act so you can have your argument demolished like Amash's argument was?

I don't have to prove Trump innocent, you have to prove him guilty.