Justin Amash

Justin Amash Joins Democrat's Push for Independent Investigation into Trump Campaign's Russia Ties

The libertarian legislator says Trump's letter to Comey was "bizarre."

|

Amash
Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

Rep. Justin Amash, a libertarian-leaning Republican member of Congress, tweeted today that he will support legislation to establish a nonpartisan, independent commission charged with investigating potential Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat. Amash is the second Republican to sign on, after Rep. Walter Jones, according to BuzzFeed News.

"Happy to join my friend @RepWalterJones as another Republican cosponsor of @RepSwalwell's bill," wrote Amash on Twitter. "This investigation must be nonpartisan."

Just two days ago, Amash expressed concerns about President Trump's decision to fire FBI Director James Comey. He wrote that the second paragraph of Trump's letter to Comey—which referenced Comey allegedly telling Trump that he was not under investigation—was "bizarre."

Trump initially claimed that he reached the decision to fire Comey after Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recommended such a course of action. But, in an interview on Thursday, Trump revised that claim.

"Regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey," said Trump, according to The New York Times. Trump also called Comey "a showboat" and a "grandstander." (Comey should have responded, I know you are, but what am I?)

We know that mere days ago, Comey asked the Justice Department for more resources in order to continue his investigation into potential ties between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. We don't know whether the firing of Comey amounts to a cover-up because we don't know if there's anything worth covering up. But even if the grand Russian conspiracy theory turns out to be nothing more than an MSNBC fever dream, Trump certainly made himself look bad here. It's inappropriate for the potential subject of an FBI inquiry to fire the person in charge of that inquiry, regardless.

That said, when it comes to Trump, the most simplistic explanation is often the best one. Trump does not operate according to normal political constraints—he does whatever he wants, because his base and most Republican leaders are prepared to let him get away with it. Comey was once an asset, so Trump praised him. Now Comey is a hindrance, so he decided to cast the man loose. If Trump wants to change the subject in the middle of an interview, he will do it. If he wants to claim he invented the phrase "prime the pump," why not? If he wants to spend his time tweeting at Rosie O'Donnell, that's how he is going to spend his time.

In any case, kudos to Amash for joining the effort to resolve the outstanding Russia questions in the only way that makes any sense: an independent investigation.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

104 responses to “Justin Amash Joins Democrat's Push for Independent Investigation into Trump Campaign's Russia Ties

  1. Cue the wailing and gnashing of teeth!

    1. This article conclusively proves that Trump is a Russian spy, Reason is run by socialists, and/or Robby hates black people; depending on which batshit troll you ask and how many doses they skipped today.

      Remember the good old days when Republicans ranted about the Russian menace, Democrats ranted about Republicans, and nobody with a life gave a shit? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

      1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

        This is what I do,.,.,.,.,… http://www.webcash10.com

  2. “We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.

    Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.”

    looks like a recommendation to terminate to me

    1. The only way to restore the legitimacy of the FBI is to not only do a full investigation of the Russia thing, but indict somebody involved with the Clinton e-mail thing. There’s no way around it.


  3. “We know that mere days ago, Comey asked the Justice Department for more resources in order to continue his investigation into potential ties between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.”

    According to the Deputy Director’s testimony, this is a bald faced lie Robby. Do you even research?

    1. From FOX:


      But McCabe told senators that the investigation ? which he called “highly significant” — is continuing unimpeded.

      “The work continues despite any changes in circumstances,” McCabe said. “There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date. You cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution.”

      Comey originally had been set to testify Thursday about worldwide threats, but McCabe appeared in his place, offering assurances to lawmakers that if there was any interference he would inform them. When asked by Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., if he would promise to tell them of any moves to interfere in the probe, McCabe said: “I absolutely do.”

      McCabe also denied reports that Comey had requested more resources for the Russia probe in the days leading up to his termination, with McCabe saying he believes the probe to be “adequately resourced” and adding that normally the FBI will not request resources for a single investigation.

      1. But that isn’t true.

        Link:

        “But at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, McCabe said the FBI already has enough resources to do the job.

        “If you’re referring to the Russia investigation, I do,” McCabe said when asked by Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., if the FBI is properly funded to do the job. “I believe we have the adequate resources to do it, and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately.”

        That answer could help the Trump administration downplay the press stories. However, McCabe didn’t say definitively that Comey did not ask for more resources before he was fired.”

      2. It could be that Comey did ask for more resources, but McCabe nonetheless believes the investigation is adequately funded even without the extra resources.

        It could be that Comey didn’t ask for more resources, but according to the NY Times story where that idea was presented, Comey told some Senators at a meeting that he had, a meeting where McCabe wasn’t present. How would McCabe know what Comey did or didn’t tell the Senators at that meeting?

        It could be that Comey did ask for mores resources, and McCabe somehow knows this, but is being instructed to say otherwise.

        In any event, there is enough ambiguity and uncertainty about what actually happened that it goes a bit too far to declare the statement “a bald faced lie”.

        1. In any event, there is enough ambiguity and uncertainty about what actually happened that it goes a bit too far to declare the statement “a bald faced lie”.

          Well, if we don’t know if Comey actually asked for more resources, and Robby’s claiming that we do know, that would probably fall somewhere between “lie” and “just wrong”.

        2. it goes a bit too far to declare the statement “a bald faced lie”.

          When a journalist prefaces a statement with “We know”___________ ….and that same statement has been specifically contradicted by both Federal Agencies spokespeople AND testimony-under-oath within the last 24 hours?

          The person making that statement is either incompetent or dishonest. Pick one.

          1. And for the record, I’m going with ‘incompetent’ on this one and giving Robby the benefit of a doubt that he apparently doesn’t want to extend to the President of the United States.

            We’re watching the American version of ‘The Big Lie’ in action right now. If enough people say a big enough lie over and over again, it must be true. Who needs evidence when so many people agree?

          2. The person making that statement is either incompetent or dishonest. Pick one.

            Both are correct.

          3. “and that same statement has been specifically contradicted ”

            But that is not true, Gilmore.

            Comey said (allegedly): We need more resources for the Russia investigation.

            McCabe was asked: Do you have enough resources for your investigation? He said yes.

            His “yes” answer is not a refutation of the claim that Comey asked for more resources.

            Did you even read my link?

            1. Let me correct that, to be as accurate as I can. Yes the agency spokesperson did contradict Comey’s story directly. But McCabe’s testimony under oath did *not*.

        3. So you point out that we don’t know, whereas Robby clearly states that we do. Then you state that is not a lie.

          What would you define as a ‘lie’ Chemjeff? I think we need to determine that before moving forward here.

          I get what you’re saying, in that FOX is (as usual) putting spin on it. I do appreciate that marginal correction in all honesty, but Robby is doing a little more than bending the truth on this. He is flatly wrong.

      3. What McCabe believes the funding level is has nothing to do with what Comey asked Trump for.

        Essentially, McCabe dodged the question, and you fell for thinking it was a direct answer.

        1. And the proof that there was ever such a request in the first place would be…

    2. Wait, “a Trump flack denies it” and nothing else is enough for you to deem the statement a “bald faced lie”?

      1. McCabe is ‘a Trump flack’?

      2. Do you even have a fucking clue who McCabe is?

      3. I don’t think there is enough evidence to suggest that McCabe is a “Trump flack”. But it’s not even necessary to go there in order to adequately explain what might have happened.

        1. There is considerable evidence to the contrary, though. Let’s gloss over that.

    3. No, Robby virtue signal signals to his progressive cocktail party pals.

  4. So the diversion from Hillary’s emails is working.

    1. ^^^ This guy gets it. Comey was going after Trump’s good friend Hillary and Trump is loyal to his friends.

      1. Sarc?
        Tin foil hattery?
        Stupidity?

    2. Hillary lost. Why are we still talking about her?

      1. Because talking about Drumpf leads to lying to levels so high that people get dizzy

      2. Because Alt-Left trolls and anti-Constitutional hypocritical liberals (see whining about Electoral College) think she should be president and selectively knock Trump and ignore the sins of their goddess Hillary.

  5. “We know that mere days ago, Comey asked the Justice Department for more resources in order to continue his investigation into potential ties between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.”

    That was refuted by McCabe’s testimony today.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..tion-date/

    1. Disputed by USDOJ as well but the narrative must be driven so fake news was created.

    2. That wasn’t a refutation at all, it was a complete dodge of the question.

      1. That wasn’t even the question he was asked if you bothered to read anything. There is zero evidence that there was ever such a request in the first place. The entire argument is irrational and rests on ‘anonymous sources’ who apparently didn’t bother to give anyone any evidence or point them in the direction of something that could be considered evidence. If there was a request, what happened to it?

        It would seem hearsay is enough to appoint a Special Prosecutor, but only if it’s a Republican.

        1. The entire argument is irrational and rests on ‘anonymous sources’ who apparently didn’t bother to give anyone any evidence or point them in the direction of something that could be considered evidence. If there was a request, what happened to it?

          I’ll grant that Comey may have asked for more “resources” in passing or during an informal meeting, but that’s not anything unusual–bureaucrats are always asking for more resources, and they’re typically laughed off by the people actually running the show for that very reason. But the news coming out is implying that there was a formal request made, and if that was the case, there’d be a paper trail on it such as an email string or an official letterhead memo, which should have been easy enough to leak given how sloppy most electronic records management is in the fedgov.

    3. I find it interesting that a so-called Libertarian rag believes that because of recordings made during an election of a President of the United States, using secret warrants and unknown justifications, that was then leaked to the press by unknown actors, is a perfectly good rationale for appointing special prosecutors to look into if Trump somehow colluded with the Russian government to hack the DNC and release their dirty laundry to Wikileaks despite the complete removal of that action from the stated evidence.

      This is what you guys are suggesting, is it not?

      Would it not be factual to say that if they did indeed have such recordings that those tapes would, right now, be in the offices of Democrat law makers to initiate impeachment proceedings? If there isn’t proof in the ‘secret’ tapes of those conversations, where do you think there is proof? Proof of what, by the way? Why was this information leaked, and by whom? Do you even care? What are we even investigating here?

      I’m starting to see why most of the intelligent people I respected left this website and it has nothing to do with fellating the Republicans. Robby is now on record as saying that we know things that we absolutely do not know. And this isn’t the first time Reason has put forward media narratives that have absolutely no basis other than being reported by another outlet that itself did zero fact checking.

      This is a joke, not news.

  6. In any case, kudos to Amash for joining the effort to resolve the outstanding Russia questions in the only way that makes any sense: an independent investigation.

    There are no ‘outstanding’ Russia questions.

    There never were any real “Russia questions”

    This entire thing was created by Democrats and their allies in media to provide some excuse as to why Hillary lost. After all, no one they know voted for Trump.

    It’s really fucking sad that Amash lacks the intelligence to see this when his fellow liberpublicans see it so easily.

    1. We need an independent investigation on every unfounded conspiracy theory that people are asking questions about. It’s the only way to resolve them in any way that makes any sense.

    2. It’s really fucking sad that Amash lacks the intelligence to see this when his fellow liberpublicans see it so easily.

      ^This^

      That a libertarian would call for this is absolutely idiotic. Outstanding Russia questions are less pertinent and legally binding than whether Barry Bonds used Steroids.

      If Benghazi was baseless, mindless grandstanding on the part of the GOP, this is 10X Benghazi. The successful outcome results in a bloated, vengeful, and incompetent intelligence apparatus impeaching a sitting and duly elected President and replacing him with Mike Pence.

      The only way it makes sense from a libertarian perspective is if there’s some manner of bizarre, protracted quid pro quo going on where we end the drug war by impeaching the President.

      1. The investigation is being conducted by Republicans. Blaming liberals does not work without facts.

        Benghazi was grandstanding, because there were EIGHT FUCKING INVESTIGATIONS! Seven after the first told you everything you needed.

        None has been completed so far on Russia matters, but there has been considerable railroading so far. From Nunes to Drumpf.

    3. “It’s really fucking sad that Amash lacks the intelligence to see this when his fellow liberpublicans see it so easily.”

      I don’t think he lacks intelligence. Amash looks to be grandstanding or doing the bidding of the Koch Brothers.

      1. Time to call him a RINO.

  7. Trump also called Comey “a showboat” and a “grandstander.” (Comey should have responded, I know you are, but what am I?)

    I think “Oh, sure, call the kettle black!” would have been better. That would have resulted in at least a 50/50 chance that Trump just gets confused and sends out tweets wondering if Comey is somehow playing the race card.

    If Trump wants to change the subject in the middle of an interview, he will do it. If he wants to claim he invented the phrase “prime the pump,” why not?

    If he wants to claim he invented the question mark, he will. Or if he wants to accuse chestnuts of being lazy…

  8. “We know that mere days ago, Comey asked the Justice Department for more resources in order to continue his investigation into potential ties between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.”

    “We know”, or “The NYT Claims”….?

    I am pretty sure there is a difference. But then I didn’t go to Columbia Journalism School.

    By Andrea Noble – The Washington Times – Wednesday, May 10, 2017

    A Justice Department spokeswoman said it is “totally false” that FBI Director James B. Comey had asked the deputy attorney general for additional resources for the Russia investigation in the days before he was fired.

    The New York Times, citing three anonymous sources, reported Wednesday that Mr. Comey had met with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and asked for an increase in personnel and funding for the bureau’s ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the November presidential election.

    After speaking with Mr. Rosenstein on Wednesday, DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores flatly denied The New York Times report.

    1. The New York Times, citing three anonymous sources,

      “anonymous sources” who knew that Comey asked for more resources, but apparently didn’t know he was going to get fired.

      1. I should get in on this anonymous source racket. Apparently it’s that easy to get NYT/WaPo to believe anything.

        1. As long as it looks bad for Trump.

    2. Who is “Sarah Isgur” ? The NYTs has THREE anonymous sources so their news wins the sources-popular vote.

      But then I didn’t go to Columbia Journalism School

      W/o a J-school credential I don’t your even legally allowed to publicly comment on this unless properly filtered by a 1A-licensed editor as an example of a crank or wingnut.

    3. So why are we suddenly taking the spokesperson’s word for it? If there is anyone in government who is literally paid to shill for the government, it’s agency spokespeople.

      Frankly whenever I hear any spokesperson for any agency – or for any corporation, for that matter – say something, I don’t regard it as “the truth”, only as “their side of the story”.

  9. The libertarian legislator

    Again, not libertarian-leaning? When did Congress’s three Republican leaners become full-fledged libertarians?
    Was it Trump? Lupus? Oh my god is it Lupus?

    1. “a libertarian-leaning Republican member of Congress”

      Serious question: can you not read?

      1. The libertarian legislator says Trump’s letter to Comey was “bizarre.”

        Subhead. DickaDicka.

        1. The guy quotes Hayek, so I think that meets purity test proficiency.

          1. Quotes do not a consistent libertarian make.

            1. Neither does scoring a 94 on the Nolan Test, but for some people, it’s good enough.

            2. DanO.|5.11.17 @ 6:21PM|#
              “Quotes do not a consistent libertarian make.”

              Your comments an ignoramus makes.

  10. “It’s inappropriate for the potential subject of an FBI inquiry to fire the person in charge of that inquiry, regardless.”

    Ya think?

    1. Trump is NOT a crook!

      1. Trump is NOT a crook!

        Turns out, after dropping the AGW moniker in favor of climate change, the globe is actually warming.

        In the same vein. I honestly don’t care if Trump talked to Russian dignitaries, the votes were counted and the Electoral College performed relatively unexceptionally. He’s the one that originally pointed out that the election was rigged. If it was rigged, whether he even talked to the Russians or not, he should be removed from office or otherwise censured.

        All that aside. What’s the goal/point? It will, as was indicated when Trump made the allegations, irrevocably erode faith in an already disaffected electorate and put Pence in The Office. I’m not saying we shouldn’t convict, impeach, or censure Trump if the evidence suggests/indicates it. Just advocating my usual scientific skepticism where fantastic claims (that could bear a fantastic cost) require fantastic evidence.

        So, is there a plan or a goal other than to prove Trump to be a (well-)paid stooge?

      2. DanO.|5.11.17 @ 5:39PM|#
        “Trump is NOT a crook!”

        DanO IS an ignoramus!

    2. Trump is not the subject of an F I inquiry. At least he isn’t outside of progressive fan fiction.

    3. (1) Trump is not subject to an FBI inquiry.

      (2) Comey has proven himself incompetent over the last year to handle such investigations, so he needed to be replaced even if he were investigating Trump.

      (3) Comey was a Republican appointee, and he is being replaced for now by a Democratic party hack, so I don’t see how that would be any better for Trump if Trump were being investigated.

  11. Sounds like Amash is not polling well in his district.

    1. Ah, yes, there’s the piece I was missing!

    2. That, or Trump pointed out to Amash that a few million dollars could find it’s way into a contenders pocket if he didn’t get in line. Trump did threaten as much, directly at the Freedom Caucus, only a few weeks ago after all. Perhaps Amash took the threat for what it was, and folded.

      1. Weird to see Amash voting for the garbage Trumpcare bill………I honestly think he has an axe to grind with Trump and wants to get back at him.

  12. Again – Clapper testified under oath that he’s not aware of any evidence that would pass muster.

    Lindsey Graham was the voice of reason (think about that) and asked many pertinent questions that revealed the state of this investigation. The only publicly released evidence of collusion are Grizzly Steppe and the dossier, and cyber security experts questioned the former and Clapper told Graham that he couldn’t corroborate sources for the latter.

    Everyone else apparently thinks its OK to accuse a president of near treason and another nation of willfully intruding on our election – based on nothing. Imagine republicans accusing Obama of collusion and the only evidence they produce is a dossier which alleges prostitutes pissed on him.

    I recall that Comey initially gave mush mouth answers to whether Clinton handled classified info on her server. Then he revealed that she was “careless”, but cleared her because he saw no “criminal intent”. Then he decided to reopen the case AGAIN days before the election when Weiner became involved, and said “oops never mind”. He frustrated everyone.

    Trump had no reason to put himself and his family through another aimless investigation that would produce no resolution. A more astute president would have endured, knowing that firing him would make him look bad. Trump is not that man. But Comey was unquestionably incompetent. And the investigation is ongoing anyways – a better man resolve the situation in a more timely and thorough manner.

  13. There is a earthshaking report in the NY Times that Trump demanded personal loyalty from Comey more than once during a private dinner weeks ago and of course Trump completely denies doing anything remotely like this which leaves absolutely no room for a misinterpretion. It’s now a question of whether the former FBI director is lying or the President is lying. If the President is lying he should be impeached for attempting to subvert justice. Congress should question Jeff Sessions and the other cabinet officials under oath to determine if they were similarly solictated to swear personal loyalty to Trump.

    1. the same NYT on which Robby bases his “we know” about Comey’s asking for more resources when, in fact, it appears he did not? Why should this group of unnamed sources be believed when the last one was inaccurate?

    2. There is a earthshaking report in the NY Times that Trump demanded personal loyalty from Comey more than once …It’s now a question of whether the former FBI director is lying or the President is lying.

      Wait a sec, was it a report in the NYT, or a statement from Comey?

      If the former, it’s a question of whether a leftist partisan rag with an undeserved quickly-eroding reputation is lying or the president is lying.

    3. There is a earthshaking report in the NY Times that Trump demanded personal loyalty from Comey more than once during a private dinner weeks ago

      Which has about as much credence as Comey asking for more resources. You leftists sure love your gossip, which is probably why you think on the level of 15-year-old girls.

    4. Yes, we need ANOTHER independent commission for this. Independent commissions for any claim the NYT makes!!!

  14. Glad to see my representative standing up and doing the right thing. This runaway train needs to be stopped before more damage is done.

    1. Hitlery still won’t be president.

  15. Rep. Justin Amash, a libertarian-leaning Republican member of Congress, tweeted today that he will support legislation to establish a nonpartisan, independent commission charged with investigating potential Russian interference in the 2016 election.

    This would seem like less bullshit if they were investigating *all* foreign “interference” in the 2016 Election.
    George Soros
    AntiFa Thugs
    Illegal aliens – violence, illegal voting, and illegal in kind contributions to the Dem Party
    BBC
    Carlos Slim
    CAIR
    EU

    1. “…investigating potential Russian interference in the 2016 election.”

      This needs investigating?
      I can save you all a bunch of money: Russia ‘interferes’ with elections throughout the world, as do we, the EU, members of the EU, Japan, China and any other country with the means to do so.
      If you are of such naivet? to presume otherwise, please spend your money to educate yourself.

  16. I’ve continued to read and web-search and have found no answer to this question:
    What actions by Trump and/or his associates with regard to Russia or Russians are or were either unethical or illegal?
    I find vague references, in print and on the web, to ‘collusion’ lacking any definition of what that might mean. We have our resident brain-dead lefty (that would be Tony, although DanO is giving him a run in the stupidity competition) who claims Trump has committed “treason”. In San Francisco, we have many for whom being on the left is now full-time tin-foil hattery claiming such detail is not required; Trump ‘hates’ some people and that’s sufficient.
    I’m still waiting, Tony, DanO, NYT, SF lefty whackos: Of what is he or his associates accused?
    Or is this a fishing expedition hoping to find someone, somewhere did something ‘wrong’?

    1. And Robby, you too. You are supporting an investigation of what? SPECIFICALLY, if I might be crude enough to ask.

    2. Treason is simply the explanation that fulfills Trump’s Razor, in my opinion. Which is to say he probably committed treason without realizing it, as he is a fucking moron, which every 5 year-old knows but not you somehow. But obstruction of justice–firing the head of the FBI while the FBI is investigating you for said treason–is definitely enough for impeachment. If anything he’s spent the last three days committing impeachable offenses in order to distract from the treason.

      1. But obstruction of justice–firing the head of the FBI while the FBI is investigating you for said treason–is definitely enough for impeachment

        Congress decides what is “enough for impeachment”, not you, not me, not some judge. And in practice, they can impeach for pretty much any reason they choose, and ignore whatever misconduct they choose to ignore.

        If you think that a Republican Congress is going to impeach Trump over firing an incompetent FBI director, I think you’re going to be disappointed.

        1. If you think that a Republican Congress is going to impeach Trump over firing an incompetent FBI director, I think you’re going to be disappointed.

          If he thinks a Democrat Congress is going to impeach Trump, he’s going to be disappointed.

      2. You haven’t really answered Sevo’s questions in your hyperventilating haste to condemn whatever monstrous version of Trump that exists in your own head. Enough people will still asking that sort of question and if no evidence is produced, Trump will go free. Free!

        Since the investigation of the Russian collusion is still ongoing and has not been “impeded” by Trump, your case of impeachment is flimsy at best. We’ve done this song and dance recently when your team screamed that Jeff Session perjured himself and just about every reputable law expert shot down that charge.

        You’ll need some sort of hard evidence that he fired Comey to intentionally disrupt the investigation – one that has been going on for over a year and produced nothing. They might have something on Flynn, but talking with Russians on the phone before the election isn’t necessarily breaking the law.

        1. You’ll need some sort of hard evidence that he fired Comey to intentionally disrupt the investigation – one that has been going on for over a year and produced nothing.

          In fact, I think it would be perfectly legitimate for Trump to fire Comey to “intentionally disrupt the investigation”: Comey has shown that he is not competent to handle investigations of political figures and Comey has failed to produce anything tangible in almost a year. The president is the only person capable of ending such incompetence, and he did. There is nothing improper about it.

          If Congress disagrees with the president’s decision, they can do their own investigation or impeach; that is their right and job.

          1. Trump could have fired Comey for any reason in the universe except the one reason he actually admitted to in a TV interview: that he didn’t like the Russia collusion investigation.

            Not only did he fire Comey for the one reason he couldn’t, he admitted to it for no reason. He’s a criminal and an incredibly dumb one and you probably think that pleases me, but it doesn’t.

            1. Trump could have fired Comey for any reason in the universe except the one reason he actually admitted to in a TV interview: that he didn’t like the Russia collusion investigation.

              He can fire Comey for that reason as well; there is absolutely no legal problem with that. It may or may not be a political liability, but that’s not a legal question.

              He’s a criminal and an incredibly dumb one and you probably think that pleases me, but it doesn’t.

              Clearly, the only thing that would please you is to turn the US into Venezuela, and you’ll keep fabricating lies to try to make that happen.

      3. firing the head of the FBI while the FBI is investigating you for said treason

        Uh, if even Comey said to Trump three times that he’s not under investigation, then this little bon mot of yours indicates that you don’t really know anything that isn’t fed to you by late-night talk show hosts.

      4. Tony|5.12.17 @ 1:18AM|#
        “Treason is simply the explanation that fulfills Trump’s Razor, in my opinion.”

        You’re an ignorant piece of lefty shit; your opinion is worth nothing.
        Either define this “treason’ you claim, or STFU

        1. What do you care? You accused Obama of everything including incest with aliens prolly. You’re a sad sack of ignorant shit, but at least back then you could claim not to be a Republican fucktard.

  17. Congrats on Justin Amash joining the gaggle of morons! This is pure idiocy, Hillary lost because she is Hillary. She was under investigation and was faker a Disney automaton. This is a waste of time and money. There are plenty of other issues to complain about with regards to the Trump administration.

    Yes, Russia tried to influence the election so what!

  18. It is impressive that the IRS can admit to discriminating against Americans and openly defy subpoenas and no independent investigation is needed.

    But Russia, with 6 months of no smoke — much less fire — requires one.

  19. Can anybody explain what EXACTLY Trump allegedly did?

    Did he ask Russia to hack our voting machines (which didn’t happen, mind you)?
    Did he ask Putin to hack the DNC emails and leak them to Wikileaks?

    Nobody seems to be able to explain what, PRECISELY, we’re supposed to be “outraged” over. Hackers got into Podesta’s emails and put info out publicly that the Dems didn’t want to be made public. Wikileaks has said, several times, their source wasn’t Russian, but let’s not even get into that.

    I will buy into this nonsense if somebody can explain what the actual problem is.

    Watching Libertarians lose their shit over the firing of an FBI Director who nobody argues was terribly good at his job is why Libertarianism is a bit of a joke.

  20. ‘libertarian’ Amash wants another commission to investigate something that has been investigated for the last 6 months++, and has come up with exactly zero to report. more govt BS. Amash had better be careful, or he’ll lose that small L reference

  21. Do you have a paypal account ? in the event if you do you can make an additional 300 a week in your revenue working from home for 3 hours every day… go to

    ……. http://www.Prowage20.Com

  22. Amash is a swamp dwelling NeverTrumper masquerading as a libertarian.

    1. Yup. This is like one of those Obamacare repeals under Obama.

      Amash knows that there is NO chance that such a bill will pass, so he signs on to it. That way reason.com Republicans posing as libertarians can applaud his patriotism, without him having to do anything.

  23. Independent Counsels were ruled unconstitutional and the law authorizing them, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 was allowed to expire in 1999. The DOJ leads any investigation of government malfeasance. Only DOJ can empanel a grand jury, ask a court for discovery, or initiate a prosecution. FBI investigators answer to the prosecutors at DOJ.
    Congress can form a committee to investigate if it wants, but there will not be any Special Prosecutor with authority to empanel a grad jury, ask a court for discovery or initiate a prosecution.
    That power rests solely with the Executive Branch and the Justice Department.

  24. I get paid 99.00 bucks every hour for work at home on my laptop. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my good friend HUe is earning 22.00k /monthly by doing this job and she showed me how. Try it out on following website

    …… http://www.Prowage20.com

  25. This is like one of those Obamacare repeals under Obama.

    Amash knows that there is NO chance that such a bill will pass, so he signs on to it. That way reason.com Republicans posing as libertarians can applaud his patriotism, without him having to do anything.

  26. gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!

    ====== http://www.Prowage20.Com

  27. So you point out that we don’t know, whereas Robby clearly states that we do. Then you state that is not a lie.

    What would you define as a ‘lie’ Chemjeff? I think we need to determine that before moving forward here.

    I get what you’re saying, in that FOX is (as usual) putting spin on it. I do appreciate that marginal correction in all honesty, but Robby is doing a little more than bending the truth on this. He is flatly wrong.
    Sent from SyndLab Review

  28. (1) Trump is not subject to an FBI inquiry.

    (2) Comey has proven himself incompetent over the last year to handle such investigations, so he needed to be replaced even if he were investigating Trump.

    (3) Comey was a Republican appointee, and he is being replaced for now by a Democratic party hack, so I don’t see how that would be any better for Trump if Trump were being investigated.
    Sent from SmartVideo Review

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.