Justin Amash

Rep. Justin Amash Says Trump 'Has Engaged in Impeachable Conduct'

"When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of liberty—crumbles."

|

In a series of tweets this afternoon, Justin Amash accused President Donald Trump of having "engaged in impeachable conduct." The libertarian-leaning Michigan congressman blamed his fellow Republican legislators for choosing to defend the president rather than the Constitution in the wake of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's report.

"Mueller's report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment," Amash tweeted. "In fact, Mueller's report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence."

Since the release of the Mueller report, most Republicans have circled the wagons around Trump. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) has declared "case closed" on the Mueller investigation. Top-notch Trump sycophants like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) have gone further, claiming that "the president never did anything to stop Mueller from doing his job," despite ample evidence to the contrary.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) initially ruled out impeaching Trump, but she said last week that "every day gives grounds for impeachment." Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D–Mich.) extended an invitation via Twitter for Amash to co-sponsor her resolution calling for a House investigation into impeachment.

Amash added that few members of Congress, on either side of the aisle, even bothered to read the Mueller report before coming to their conclusions about it.

Amash also took aim at Attorney General William Barr. Amash said Barr had "deliberately misrepresented" Mueller's findings—presumably referring either to Barr's letter to Congress in the days prior to the report's release or to his subsequent testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 29. (Barr refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, as scheduled, the following day.)

Amash, who has frequently and publicly disagreed with members of his own party since Trump took office, is the first Republican since Mueller's report came out to make such an open, public statement about being open to impeachment.

The report stops short of saying the president had obstructed justice, but it also does not exonerate Trump. "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," the report reads.

Indeed, the entire second volume of the 400-plus page report is dedicated to documenting incident after incident where the president attempted to interrupt, stop, or inhibit Mueller's investigation into the ties between Trump's campaign and the Russian government. Those attempts to "influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful," the report states, but only because "the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."

As I wrote at the time, Mueller was clearly—and correctly—kicking the question of obstruction (and the associated question of impeachment) to Congress. As I also wrote at the time, "intense partisanship will save the president from the political reckoning he probably deserves," though choosing not to impeach Trump could set a dangerous precedent of its own.

Amash struck the same note on Sunday.

"While impeachment should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances, the risk we face in an environment of extreme partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often but rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter misconduct," he wrote. "When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of liberty—crumbles."

 

 

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.

Please to post comments

333 responses to “Rep. Justin Amash Says Trump 'Has Engaged in Impeachable Conduct'

  1. Grasping at straws.

    1. DC should ban straws.

      1. Amash is part owner of a firm, MIT, that own Tekton which ILLEGALLY claims to make products in the US when they are actually made in China. He is a total scumbag, trying to protect his illegal financial interests.

    2. Using straws is also an impeachable offense.

      1. Hindsight certainly shows that the Mueller investigation was indeed a witch hunt. There was no crime. Yet Amash thinks that there could be obstruction of justice of a non-crime. He also thinks that Trump is highly partisan. Funny how he never called for the impeachment of Obama for being highly partisan.

    3. The Republicans present have reaffirmed their undying devotion to the Orange Stain for the 922nd straight day — often a hundred times daily! — but what do libertarians think, and where did they all go? Or were Reason “libertarians” Republicans all along?

      1. If you look at numbers of regulations repealed, Trump is actually ahead of what some thought was an outrageous campaign promise. He has said that he would sign a marijuana legalization bill. He is the most libertarian president ever.

        1. First rate knob polishing, bro.

      2. “Orange stain”?? What are you? A fucking 5 year old?

        You don’t have to be a Republican to think the Mueller witch hunt was bullshit, your ad hominem notwithstanding. Why don’t you (and the MSM) say anything about collusion anymore? Because it was BS all along and everyone knows it now.

        Doesn’t it bother you that he continued an investigation for 2 years, through a Congressional election, knowing the *whole time* he had no evidence of any collusion/conspiracy with the Ruskies?

    4. Amash is a true reason libertarian. “Obstruction” of justice when no crime was committed, because he’d rather see his enemies harmed or pander to the cocktail crowd.

      I have been liking him less and less, this just finishes it for me. Massey’s is the best libertarian in Congress and it is not even close.

      1. Amash, like Biden, has ties to China.

        Is he under investigation? Yet?

        1. He’s a foreigner once removed which are the worst kind because you can’t tell they’re a foreigner. It’s just horrible.

      2. Yeah. Signal and pander all you want, Justin, the (il)liberals will still ultimately call you a Nazi and castigate you.

            1. Lol

      3. He’s a putz. He should be primaried and have to get a real job.

        1. I’m no big fan of the Dumbos or the GOP, nor am I a big fan of Trump, though I’m glad he beat Da Witch!

          But, Mash-Head says:

          “When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of liberty—crumbles.”

          But, as the facts clearly show in the whole Trump-Russia debacle, it was Higher-Ups in Obummy’s DOJ, CIA, FBI, & NSA ,supposedly impartial agencies, who violated their Constitutional oaths & broke the rule of law by pledging their loyalty to Clinton, the DNC & the Democrat Party & did all they could to make sure she won & then after she lost, they did all they could to foment a coup of a duly elected prez!!!

          Amash should just shut up!

      4. True libertarians believe every insane utterance of the president of the United States without question, especially when it’s in his own defense.

        1. Does not follow.

        2. Go F your non sequitur self!

  2. Still not sure why, if folks think the Mueller report showed Trump committed indictable offenses, Mueller didn’t indict trump.

    Is Mueller a Trump stooge?

    And while we’re at it, was HRC and her campaign a stooge for throwing the election? Was Bernie a Trump stooge for drawing woke progressive votes from Hillary? Was Bill Clinton a Trump stooge for not campaigning harder (or less hard) for Hillary?

    1. I don’t think DoJ standards allow the indictment of a sitting President – when the topic comes up they say it would be unconstitutional.

      1. If Muller can determine collusion or not he certainly could determine obstruction. The cant indict is just bs by Muller and the left to make the tds last.

        1. The ‘can’t indict a Prez’ comes straight from the DoJ OLC and dates back to 1973 and has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump.

      2. Courts ruled once in Texas vs Perry that you cant be indicted for using a constitutional power. The constitution gives the president discretion to run his branch of government. He can fore anyone for any reason. To think otherwise diminishes greatly the power of the executive and Grant’s powers to unelected bureaucrats.

      3. “I don’t think DoJ standards allow the indictment of a sitting President – when the topic comes up they say it would be unconstitutional.”

        Mueller could have said that: “We determined that the President committed obstruction of justice, and that we could prove all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. But we declined to indict the President because DoJ regulations do not permit the indictment of a sitting President.”

        1. No he couldn’t credibly write that. If he can’t bring charges, then he can’t talk about theories/hypotheses in alternative universes about bringing legal charges.

          The DoJ view is that only Congress has the ability to restrain a Prez under the rule of law – and that is via impeachment which is not a legal process but a political one. So Mueller dropped the next step in Congress’ lap.

          1. The regulations governing the special counsel say that, “At the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.” So if the reason Mueller declined to prosecute the President was the DoJ policy against indicting a sitting President, Mueller was required to say so.

            1. He clearly stated why he did not determine guilt outside of bringing charges in his report.

              To pretend otherwise is disingenuous bullshit.

              The OLC memo prevents the indictment of a sitting President. If he cannot be indicted, then accusing him of a crime for which he cannot be indicted also prevents him from having his opportunity in court to potentially clear his name from such accusations, because without an indictment, there’s no trial.

              So in the interest of being as fair to Trump as possible, he gave the evidence to Congress, since THEY can actually deal with the issue.

              Regulations be damned. He did the right thing according to the restrictions and interest on Due Process that he was allowed to. Maybe you should actually read the damn report.

              1. So is Congress like, what, a grand jury that can’t share the allegations with the voters? So we can’t find out what it’s about until impeachment occurs?!

              2. “So in the interest of being as fair to Trump as possible, he gave the evidence to Congress, since THEY can actually deal with the issue.”

                The regs require him to explain his prosecution/declination decisions in a confidential report to the AG, so there is no concern about publicly accusing the president of anything. This claim by Mueller is disingenuous bullshit. And if Trump for some reason wanted a forum to defend himself, he could waive the DoJ rules. And once again, the special counsel doesn’t give anything to Congress, he writes a confidential report to the AG. The law requiring a report to Congress was allowed to expire in a bipartisan manner because people didn’t like what happened with the Starr report.

                1. It’s cute that you think repeating your lies enough times will make them true.

                  The report says otherwise.

                  1. No, it doesn’t, and TIP is correct. You just don’t get it because you’re an idiot who doesn’t do research before forming his opinions.

                    1. Persuasive argument.

                      Not.

                      GFY.

              3. “If he cannot be indicted, then accusing him of a crime for which he cannot be indicted also prevents him from having his opportunity in court to potentially clear his name from such accusations, ”

                And? That’s a dodge, not a reason.

                1. Of course it’s a dodge. Mueller could have issued the first part of the report, on collusion, 6-12 months earlier, and sat on it to keep the narrative viable a bit longer.

                  He could testify today as to whether Barr mischaracterized the report, but doesn’t. Because the only non-perjurous testimony he could give would kill that narrative, too.

                  Basically he’s trying to make Trump look as bad as possible, as long as possible, while not putting himself in legal jeopardy.

              4. Mueller predicated on the OLC guidance at a disguise for his attempts at novel interpretations of obstruction. Interpretation so broad that publicly declaring yourself innocent could fall under muellers interpretation. The fact that you and liberals are so hung ho about indicting someone for obstruction of a non crime says a lot about your authoritarian nature.

            2. And he did – did you really not read any reporting on the Mueller Report? It was the first goddamn thing Mueller said.

              1. “And he did – did you really not read any reporting on the Mueller Report?”

                Mueller said that he “…determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.” Mueller decided non to decide whether Trump committed crimes. So Barr, his boss, picked up the slack and determined Trump did not commit any crimes. It’s really not that complicated.

            3. “…explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.”

              Meaning that, given a subordinate of the Executive cannot prosecute POTUS, there is no decision to explain. The explanations would involve anyone else.

          2. “No he couldn’t credibly write that. If he can’t bring charges, then he can’t talk about theories/hypotheses in alternative universes about bringing legal charges.”

            I see no reason why not.

          3. And if Horse-Face Mueller decided not to bring charges, then his report should not have had all those private conversations with Trump & his counsel & close aides, for that is where all the blabbering about Trump obstructing justice is coming from & from what I can tell by those conversations Trump did not obstruct justice in any way. Even if he asked people to lie for him, and it is not certain that he did, if they did not, then there was no obstruction. Trump did not destroy evidence, he did not lie under oath, he did not extort people to lie for him, he did not force people to lie for him, etc..There was no obstruction & Horse-Face Mueller knew it. That is why he released the report on a Friday afternoon with no press conference. But, he knew by not coming out & clearly saying there was no obstruction, then the DEMs would continue to drag this out & Trump would look bad. Since Mueller hates Trump like most longtime DC Swamp Critters/Deep Staters, he is happy they are doing it!

        2. US Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
          […]
          The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

          Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

          1. The Constitution would seem to require the President be “convicted” and removed from office via 2/3 Senate majority AND THEN indictment of the President can begin.

            1. I don’t think it likely the Senate will impeach President Trump, and for the same reasons Obama was not impeached. There are still a few principled people who will support the impeachment of a sitting president who is a member of their party, but not the two thirds majority needed to carry it off. Frankly, this is why I detest the two party system.

              1. Penny:..I don’t think it likely the Senate will impeach President Trump,..

                The Senate CAN NOT impeach anyone…see United States Constitution Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 5:
                “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

                Impeachment is indictment, accusation.
                Bill Clinton was successfully impeached. He was not convicted in the Senate and was not removed from office.

                1. Thank you! So the House can indict President Trump, but the Senate has the responsibility to convict him and remove him from office? That clarifies some things…….

    2. “was HRC and her campaign a stooge for throwing the election?”

      Hillary Clinton got more votes than any white male candidate in history — despite a biased pro-Drumpf media and Russian interference. Your suggestion is insulting.

      #StillWithHer

      1. Pathetic

        1. Different p word. Ends in arody.

          1. Not sure.
            The twit who posts as OBL let a commie-kid meme slip a while back, right commie kid?
            Regardless, it’s beyond tiresome by now, and if it was parody, even the twit posting it should have gotten tired of it by now. Maintaining a false identity is more work than most sane individuals chose to do.

            1. “sane” is the key word.

      2. You didn’t answer your question – is she complicit in Trump’s misconduct by throwing her shot at the Presidency in the garbage?

        Was there not a legal, nay, *a moral duty* on her part to run a professional campaign in order to prevent Trump/Hitler from sneaking in and stealing the Electoral College?

        1. Hillary certainly deserved to win if you ascribe to the old saying “If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying.”

          In that case, no one tried harder than Hillary.

          1. Yeah, it’s just a darn shame she simply relied solely on the cheating & did not bother to actively campaign in Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, & decided not to release positive ads about what she would, but just kept continuing to bash her opponent!

            1. She tried that early on, and figured out that the more the voters saw of her, the worse she did. So she stopped campaigning outside the ‘bluest” states to avoid driving down her vote totals.

              1. +1,000

          2. “I won’t say I did and I won’t say I didn’t, but I will say that a man who wouldn’t cheat for a poke don’t want one bad enough.”

      3. Ans she got more votes than any white male in history, even though SHE ACTUALLY DID OBSTRUCT JUSTICE!!!

        America, early 21st Century: What a Country!

    3. Mueller didn’t indict Trump but basically deferred that decision to the Department of Justice.

    4. The fact is we don’t completely understand why Robert Mueller chose to not indict. The best thing would be to have him come before the American people in Congressional testimony and explain his thinking. The President has said he has no objection to this so why hasn’t it happened.

      1. No crime was committed by Trump is why it never happened.

      2. Mainly because his testimony will further drive nails in coffin of this whole Democratic fantasy and thus take away one of the favorite talking points.

  3. So…Mike Pence should be president? Or are you planning to impeach both of them?

    I am certain that would result in something unintended.

    1. When Trump is impeached Hillary will become President because #ItWasHerTurn.

      1. It’s simple really: Trump impeached, Pence quickly dies by suicide via several rifle shots to the back through a window, Pelosi takes over and names Hillary VP just before resigning. This is how we do it in a democracy.

  4. Boehm and Amash are idiots. I’m guessing the Democrats are thinking they’re the useful kind.

    1. +1000

  5. So……is anyone gonna list what these “impeachable actions” are that constitute obstruction? Firing Comey? I’m not gonna read the Meuller report.

    1. Yeah I’d like to see specifically what constitutes impeachable conduct here. Trump fully cooperated with the Mueller investigation even though he said, truthfully, there was no underlying crime. He never invoked executive privilege, which he had every legal right to do as many of his predecessors have done. He had the legal authority to fire Comey for any reason or none at all. Maybe Justin hasn’t noticed that Comey is a total asshole. I’d have fired him at the inauguration. He had the legal authority to fire Mueller at any time but didn’t.
      Maybe Justin could actually articulate his case rather than tweeting a few sentences. There’s speculation he wants to run for president on the Libertarian ticket so maybe he sees Bill Weld as a role model. Could be the first time in decades I don’t vote Libertarian.

      1. Maybe you shouldn’t open your mouth if all you’re going to do is lie.

        The report demonstrates repeatedly that Trump did NOT cooperate fully.

        He’s invoked executive privilege over the entire report as of last week.

        His legal authority does not extend to corrupt intent with regards to firing Comey.

        Maybe you should read the report and be quiet until you do.

        1. Your response to “Maybe he should articulate the impeachable offenses is “Why are you a lying face?!?”

        2. He didn’t “cooperate fully” in the sense of agreeing to be grilled without a lawyer present, a smart move given Mueller’s already demonstrated inclination to set perjury traps. No President would have cooperated with a hostile investigator in THAT manner.

          Aside from that, most of what Mueller would interpret as “obstruction” merely consisted of either perfectly ordinary exercises of his constitutional authority, or even less exceptional exercises of the 1st amendment rights everyone has.

          Basically Mueller has a bunch of acts that could conceivably be interpreted as obstruction if you assumed he had a corrupt motive. But he’s entitled to the contrary assumption, and that assumption has to be rebutted with evidence, not just animus against him.

          1. I cannot stand Mueller as he is a bureaucratic hack but even all his trying could not produce any criminal activity by Trump that Democrats could use to get rid of Trump.

            Otherwise, Pelosi and every other Democrat would be in line trying to get rid of Trump and Pence (as some accomplice), so Pelosi could assume the office of President.

          2. Basically Mueller has a bunch of acts that could conceivably be interpreted as obstruction if you assumed he had a corrupt motive. But he’s entitled to the contrary assumption, and that assumption has to be rebutted with evidence, not just animus against him.

            And, IMO, this is Meuller’s own stance in the report. There was no collusion, absent evidence of collusion, what could be construed as attempts at obstruction can also otherwise be interpreted as normal legal defenses.

        3. “His legal authority does not extend to corrupt intent with regards to firing Comey.”

          Lol wtf? Yes it does, Comey served at the pleasure of the President, full stop. He can fire him for wearing a brown belt with black shoes, if he wants.

        4. The investigation is over and the report is in the public domain. He hasn’t invoked privilege over it. As noted there were multiple reasons to fire Comey in fact the Democrats were demanding it after he made his announcement about the Clinton email investigation which was the stated reason he was fired. If Trump had corrupt intent it would make more sense to fire Mueller which was within his authority as well.
          If Amash has a case for impeachment he should reveal it in detail not drop a Twitter bomb to get media attention.

          1. You are a liar, and should probably just kill yourself.

            Also, h ordered the firing of Mueller and his underlings REFUSED.

            Now go off and salvage your family name with your noble sacrifice so they can finally show their faces in society again.

            1. You seem sane.

            2. Dude you really need to calm down. Your increasingly incoherent spluttering has me worried not just about your mental health but also potential physical consequences. Besides which I have no idea how to clean your spittle off the inside of my monitor screen

              1. Your purpose here is to lie and deceive your (presumably) fellow Americans.

                You don’t deserve niceties. You deserve to have someone to call you out as the piece of trash that you are.

                For example, among the other bullshit I’ve proven that you’re wrong about, you say Trump didn’t exert executive privilege over the Mueller report.

                https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-08/trump-mueller-executive-privilege

                You are a liar, and society should treat you accordingly.

                1. Hey, dingle berry. He exerted executive priveledge over the release of unredacted grand jury testimony. Much of which is already located on a non networked computer In a safe room in the capital. The 10 members of the judiciary committee have access. But to this date not a single democrat on the judiciary has viewed it, not even that fucking toad nadler.

                  So what are the dems on the judiciary waiting for?

                  Nothing because they know there’s nothing actionable. But if they can make it public they can at least try and embarrass a bunch of people, including trump.

            3. Jason President Trump could have fired Mueller himself, without any help from his subordinates. But he didn’t. Mueller carried out a 2-year investigation. It’s gonna be hard to make a strong case for obstruction requiring the impeachment of the president.

      2. Amash subtly applied his own standard for impeachment. No longer must a President have committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” is seems, rather “betraying the public trust,” whatever the hell that means, is apparently sufficient. That this comes from a man who has objected to Donald Trump at every turn since long before the 2016 election about sums up Amash’s credibility on the issue of impeachment.

      3. So, you mean you voted for the Johnson/Weld horror duo in 2016?

    2. “So……is anyone gonna list what these “impeachable actions” are that constitute obstruction?”

      Absolutely!
      He is guilty of being Trump!
      ‘Nuff said.

      1. I would say that about covers it. They just don’t like him.

        1. I refuse to ‘watch the news’.
          Wife commonly does and during the day, I’ll get occasional ‘updates’ from one of the feeds or other: Today, one of the legacy press covered Trump’s golf handicap.
          I’m pretty sure there is no disagreement here (which is saying a lot) that the press should be adversarial to a sitting POTUS.
          Further, I’m more than certain that Obo received the treatment a lap-dog would provide, while examining the golf handicap of a POTUS is evidence of (at least) bias, and more likely, a serious case of TDS.
          I wish it were more commonly fatal, and painfully so: we would be rid of the lefty ignoramuses Tony, OP, and the asshole rev at least.

          1. I would take that the Press be objective and question everything the government does.

            The Press is largely a propaganda outlet for Lefties, so when a Republican President is in office, we actually get far more scrutiny of those Presidents than we probably would if the media was skeptical of every politician. The media hates Trump, so they constantly have multiple magnifying glasses on everything that he does. It about as much of an adversarial relationship as you can get without violence.

    3. Anyone know if Amash was actually as vacuous as Boehm portrays him here, or it’s just Boehm interpreting the world according to his own vacuousness?

      Or did OBL write Boehm’s article today, and decided to parody Amash as well?

      1. Yes, I too found the remarks attributed to Amash to be unusual. If you’re right, it’s a new low for Boehm.

    4. They won’t because each of them (a) lack any causation and (b) are either thought crimes, speech crimes, and/or exclusive Article I duties that the Courts can’t put a limit on the use of.

      In theory, anything can be an impeachable offense. So, he can just say, Trump should be impeached because I don’t like him. That’s essentially his weak-ass take.

  6. As I understand it, impeachment has a lower threshold of proof than indictment. There’s nothing inconsistent about saying that the evidence is strong enough to support the former but not the latter.

    I think it’s all irrelevant. Impeachment wouldn’t result in removing Trump from office. It probably wouldn’t even hurt his re-election bid. Republicans will continue to support the president while democrats continue to oppose him, just as before.

    1. There is no threshold of proof required to impeach.

      1. Exactly. Clinton got impeached because he lied about getting his dick sucked at work. Who here wouldn’t lie about getting your dick sucked at work to save your job?

        Alternatively, who here sucks dick at work to keep their job?

        1. Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:[21]

          the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
          prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
          prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
          his attempts to tamper with witnesses
          Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:[22]

          encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
          encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
          concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
          attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
          permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky’s affidavit
          attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Curie
          making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses

          1. Thanks Dan, you saved me the trouble.

        2. “linton got impeached because he lied about getting his dick sucked at work. ”

          No, because he lied about it under oath, in court. And convinced others to lie under oath. And had his White House staff collecting and destroying evidence under subpoena.

          You can’t have a functioning justice system if that sort of thing is permitted.

          And even that wouldn’t have gotten him impeached if it hadn’t been for all the earlier scandals where you could tell something criminal had taken place, but the obstruction had been sufficiently successful to rule out proving it in court.

          1. Democrats prefer to apply the law based on their feelings, not facts. This is part of why they have to go.

  7. For those who’ve been following Amash more closely than I am, is he a consistent libertarian constitutionalist or is he auditioning to be another Collins?

    1. He’s auditioning for a presidential run.

      1. ^^^ This. He wants to be the next Maverick.

    2. The new right will not embrace him. They want someone who has an attitude and fights back. While Amash is clearly a more reasoned individual, that is not what the current culture of the right wants.

      1. “Amash is clearly a more reasoned individual”

        Sure.
        Going full retard definitely demonstrates that

        1. Trump is a ping pong champion and charmed the pants off of Kim Jong Un. Belligerent yes, retard no.

          Amash, he went full retard and went home empty-handed.

      2. +100

        Although Amash’s main claim to fame is wanting to cut some budgets. So does Trump.

        Justin Amash’s Voting Records

    3. Amash is as consistent a libertarian constitutionalist as the House currently has. I think he’s factually wrong in this case, but he’s no Collins.

      1. Justin Amash’s Voting Records

        Amash is not a Libertarian but he does try to slow down government more than most Congressmen.

    4. Having followed Amash for about 7 yrs, I think he is being honest in his reading of the report. We’ve seen over the past couple of years a number of cases where his loyalty (fixation?) to being the staunchest constitutionalist have made him a rather difficult guy to coral.

      Sorry to see what he has to write, I tend to think this has little to do with politics, and more to do with fact.

      Sorry to see so many fellow commenters being more interested in scoring points or ranting pro/con Trump, than being interested in the comments of someone who has actually read the report.

      1. If so, he’s absurdly naive. His principled stance is serving only to help people who don’t give a rat’s ass about the Constitution.

      2. I’m not sure when obstruction of a non crime became a libertarian stance.

        And it basically comes down to trump legally defending himself being called obstruction.

        Nothing like libertarians for the police state. Fuck Amash and his TDS.

      3. Amash is pretty good, which is why this is so disappointing to make something out of a non-criminal offense.

        I do notice that Amash tends to “Did not Vote” on a surprising number of House Bills. Almost like he cannot vote for/against for some reason. They dont explain why, so it could be completely innocent reasons, like he was not able to be in DC for some reason.

        1. He explains all of his votes on his Facebook page, if you are interested.

          Amash is decent from a small government perspective, but his stance on secret police and other government agencies spying on political campaigns and trying to overthrow a duly elected president negates any other impact he may have. It is like claiming Ted Bundy was a good human because he once helped an old lady cross the street. Amash’s stance on this is despicable, so fuck him.

          1. Not anymore he doesn’t. He quit doing that awhile ago. As Kevin McCarthy pointed out in his rebuttal, he doesn’t even bother to ask questions in his committees anymore. He’s basically gone from a principled fiscal conservative to a contrarian malcontent trying to get publicity for a presidential run while he phones it in at work.

            Amash has gone the way of Jeff Flake…he just wants attention but doesn’t think it’s important to produce results to achieve that.

      4. Ok, look: On an absolute scale,, I’d agree that Trump has done things to merit impeachment. They’re not why the Democrats want him impeached, but he still has.

        On an absolute scale, there hasn’t been a President in my lifetime who didn’t merit impeachment, (Reagan, for instance? Iran Contra was a serious scandal.) and yet only one of them got impeached. So the House is NOT operating on some absolute scale.

        On a relative scale? If Amash didn’t want Obama impeached, I don’t see why I should be listening to him, because Obama was worse on any objective relative scale. If Amash couldn’t be bothered to seriously advocate impeaching HIM, this isn’t about objective crimes against the Constitution.

        1. Good points.

        2. Agreed entirely, even if you don’t regard all of the items some would regard as impeachable. Frankly, Ben-Ghazi gate, which Senator Paul questioned Obama officials about, could have been sufficient. So could have another score (and then some!) of scandals, including the Nuclear Deal with Iran (which for all intents and purposes, was treaty without the approval of Congress), Obama’s IRS Director, Lois Learner’s targeting conservative and libertarian groups for audits, Obama’s DOJ Spying on AP reporters, Operation Fast and Furious, ‘recess’ appointments – While Congress was in session!, Appointment of Czars without Senate Approval, and the War on Libya without Congressional approval. What is truly galling about this is we the people are paying the conservative and libertarian groups damages for Lois Learner’s actions!

          1. What scandals? The Obama Administration was pure as the wind driven snow.

            After you let the dog out to piss.

            And the chimney was swept.

            And did you just shovel the driveway?

      5. You’re new here, ain’t ya? Half the commentariat here are card-carrying members of the Cult of the Cheeto Jesus and their God will not be mocked.

        1. Cheeto Jesus is a great name for a band.

  8. Man, I can’t even get in before the Trump bootlickers accuse him of grasping at straws, never being a true conservative/Republican, etc.

    Thank god there is at least one member of the party with a semblance of honor and integrity who won’t whitewash away all this.

    1. wearingit
      May.18.2019 at 9:24 pm
      “Man, I can’t even get in before the Trump bootlickers accuse him of grasping at straws, never being a true conservative/Republican, etc.”
      You got here in plenty of time to prove you’re a fucking ignoramus.

      “Thank god there is at least one member of the party with a semblance of honor and integrity who won’t whitewash away all this.”
      What is “this” to which you claim to refer?

    2. Remember, it’s only honor if you belief trump and his family should be locked up. You’re a fool. Nothing in your post is relevant to actual legal or constitutional discussions.

    3. Still waiting, you pathetic piece of shit.

    4. We don’t like Trump, we just despise slavers and statists like you.

    5. Why do you sockpuppet like that?

  9. Everything is proceeding as I predicted. The Mueller Report proves beyond all doubt Drumpf needs to be impeached. House Democrats — and hopefully a few patriotic Republicans — will do the right thing.

    Everyone should sign the MoveOn impeachment petition.

    1. Wasn’t MoveOn started to oppose Bill Clinton’s impeachment?

      1. Bill Clinton didn’t collude with a hostile foreign power to win a hacked election.

        #NotAllImpeachmentsAreTheSame

        1. Wish I knew how to post in Chinese.

          1. 使用Google翻譯以中文撰寫。

        2. Hilary colluded with a hostile foreign power and lost the election anyway. To an amateur who never ran for office before.

    2. Joe Biden wakes up after Phish concert.

  10. Tweeting is not the way to share this sort of thing. I respect Amash but so weighty a matter deserves an article with citations of the report and his rationale connecting them as grounds for impeachment. I tweeted as much back to him.

    1. That’s was very tweet of you.

    2. Tweeting is how you get yourself come cheap publicity about taking a stand against Trump in a way that completely avoids doing what you claim is you constitutional duty to do.

      If he means it, he should cosponsor a bill to impeach Trump.

      Until he does that, he’s just completely full of shit. He’s spitting in the face of actual constitutionalists with his tweetpeachment.

      Do what you say the constitution demands. Shut the hell up. Or be rightly considered a pretend friend of the constitution.

      1. +100

        If Amash really thinks Trump is that bad, try and impeach him.

        Amash should be aware that he would get the boot from the House on election 2020, either primaried or general election loss.

    3. Exactly this.

  11. “When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law”

    Could someone please provide me with a list of presidents this would apply to? Or a list that it doesn’t apply to. Whichever is shorter.

    1. The hilarious thing is being loyal to the constitution says trump didnt obstruct justice.

    2. Washington.

      EOF

  12. The usually sane Amash has lost his mind over Trump. Impeachment is a serious endeavor being tossed casually or petulantly around based on the idea of obstruction of a clearly politically-motivated investigation the target of which knew was such.

    Personally I would be thrilled if the only thing these people get done is going at each other but it’s always one-sided, giving voters the wrong idea that if they only vote the other party in (or establishment candidates) things will be above board. The lack of much reporting on that other party backs up that false impression.

    It’s bizarre to me what this president does to people.

    1. Weird indeed. Amash is the sane one.

      Until….in the zombie movies he’d be the one who everyone liked and was in the process of saving a life, would get bit by a zombie and get infected with….TDS.

      Were there any Democrats who ever pushed back on Obama’s own constitutional shenanigans?

    2. “The usually sane Amash has lost his mind over Trump. Impeachment is a serious endeavor being tossed casually or petulantly around based on the idea of obstruction of a clearly politically-motivated investigation the target of which knew was such.”

      His ego-mania took over during the Kavanaugh confirmation process, and it appears he has a bit of a problem separating his emotions from the facts at hand.
      As you mention, impeachment is a serious matter and anyone serious about it needs to start from specific allegations and then work to the process.
      No one, including Amish, has done anything of the sort. Everyone starts with *IMPEACHMENT*, and then hopes someone else will fill in the blanks.
      TDS is not limited to Ds; Amish is a prime example.

  13. Again. If I were being investigated for a crime or crimes I didn’t commit and knew it was nothing but a witch hunt (and Lord me does this entire Russia narrative have its fair share of shady characters and sleazy partisan behaviour worthy of a movie), I’d have a hard time biting my lip.

    So not sure what the problem here is. It seems as though everyone knew – wink – from the onset there really was no crime (hence all the periphery crap that went on) but still went ahead with this pointless banana republic shit show.

    What we did learn though, was that Barry was no angel and neither were the Democrats who tried to orchestrate a soft coup.

    But impeach a President who did nothing.

    In fact, he comes out looking squeaky clean.

    Hillary and Barry and the rest of the DNC not so much.

    1. You better not declare your innocence in court unless you want to be run up on obstruction – Democrats and Amash

      1. And reason. This has been their stance from the beginning.

        Most libertarians here have called this fiasco for what it is from the beginning. Reason writers have consistently ignored principles in order to attack Trump.

        1. To be fair, reason writers ignored principles in order to protect Obama.

          It would almost seem that most reason staff have no Libertarian principles, which makes sense on how they can so easily say the Lefty shit that they say.

          1. All evidence points to the Obama administration spying on a political candidate in order to help their party win an election. This isnt conspiracy, the facts bear this out.

            Because they have no defense for what they did, all the dems have is a good offense, and it looks very badly on reason that they are participating in it.

            The shit that they pulled was authoritarian bullshit, and if anyone at reason was a respectable libertarian, they would be covering it at that angle. And they would be screaming about it.

            What happened was one of the greatest threats to liberty this country has ever faced. What Obama and his administration did was straight up tyrannical. And that was the country we almost lived in.

            1. Nope. You don’t get to pull this bullshit while pretending that the facts that fellow Republican Bob Mueller and a whole bunch of other Republicans dug up on Trump is all lies. The amount of selection bias going on with this bullshit can only be the product of a serious FOX News addiction.

              1. You say this, then fail to list any of those “facts ” because they make you look like a weird stalker girlfriend.

              2. So what if Mueller was a Republican? Like the GOP doesn’t have factions? Trump was running against the GOP establishment as much as he was against Hillary, and that establishment is always happy to cooperate with the Democrats in taking down Republican insurgents.

                Mueller got appointed independent counsel just two days after being passed over for the head of the FBI, after his best buddy had been fired. If he’d actually had integrity he’d have refused the job on the basis of conflict of interest. But based on several incidents, such as the Whitey Bulger case, we know that Mueller doesn’t actually have integrity, he just plays somebody who does.

          2. You’re an idiot conservative GOP hack. Reason and Amash are demonstrating libertarian principles while you salute to your dear leader.

            1. And you’re a pedophile and child pornographer.

            2. Yes, locking people up on the predicate of a non criminal action is so libertarian.

              1. Do we need to get you the Crayola version of the Mueller report so you can actually fucking read it?

                Your repeated bullshit and lies has grown beyond tiresome.

                1. Jason, the correct conjugation is “have”, not “has” for plural subjects.

  14. Wasn’t he talking about running as the libertarian candidate? Well that sure ended quickly.

    1. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the practice of “principled libertarians” sucking up to democrats toNot really. The last one wanted to impose baking of Nazi cakes because feelings. Seems dismissing due process and assumption of innocence would be right up the LP’s lane right now. Whatever pleases their prog masters.

      1. Well, crap. There’s an actual comment buried in there somewhere.

  15. Sad to see Amash is a Russia Truther. Guess he decided to go the way the LP did and pander to the Left in a desperate attempt to look contrarian.

  16. Specifics?

  17. Rep. Amash, obstruction of injustice is not a crime. And a politically motivated witch hunt based on a campaign of espionage begun over a work of fiction in order to essentially effect a coup would have been an injustice.

    1. The people involved should certainly be under investigation.

  18. Another so-called Libertarian gives the prosecution side the benefit of the doubt. Looks like Justin Amash is all about law and order when he sees an advantage for himself.

    Is the new Libertarian ethos to support prosecutors railroading people with phony investigations into false charges and then trapping them in subjectively defined process crimes?

    1. The professional “libertarians” have their “core principle” of Open Borders Uber Alles. Didn’t you get Nick’s memo?

      Let the Invasion of America continue, by any means necessary.

    2. *Ben sidles up to attorney general of the United States Bill Barr and sucks his cock*

      1. *Tony, ostensibly a gay man, uses gay sex as an insult*

        1. Nah, it’s just a fantasy for him.

  19. Is . . . is he going to tell us which things in the report he says provide evidence that Trump acted ‘impeachibly’? Or is this like a Youtube takedown notice where you’re supposed to guess where the offending content is?

  20. “Mueller was clearly—and correctly—kicking the question of obstruction (and the associated question of impeachment) to Congress.”

    I never know what people mean when they say this. Mueller was a special counsel working for the DoJ investing crimes, and charged with giving a report to the AG. He may or may not have had expectations about how his work might be used by Congress, but his expectations along those lines are irrelevant to his work as special counsel.

    1. You talk like any of those vermin believe in the rule of law.

      It was coup. Law is simply not the point with these people. They’re after power, by any means necessary.

      1. It’s as John Fund wrote in the WSJ something like 25 years ago: We no longer have elections to change our governors, we have leaks, charges, investigating committees, memos, and rumors.

    2. He may or may not have had expectations about how his work might be used by Congress, but his expectations along those lines are irrelevant to his work as special counsel.

      It’s the bizarro leftist POV. Remeber, Comey as an investigator, said the US wouldn’t be bringing charges against HRC. There is precisely *zero* doubt she obstructed her investigation. It’s *known* she destroyed evidence.

      They want the system to work such that anybody on their team can find people guilty while the other team has to go through protracted hearings and investigations to no avail because the AG and members of the royal family have a chat on a tarmac.

  21. The report admits his attempts were unsuccessful so how can there be obstruction? Is attempted obstruction a crime?

    1. Arguably Trump had a constitutional *duty* to both immediately stop the investigation of a man he personally knew to be innocent, and crush an attempted Coup against the President of the United States.

    2. Is attempted obstruction a crime?

      Yes. So is attempted murder. So is conspiracy. So is extortion and fraud.

      1. Bzzzzzt the correct answer is *nope*

      2. The president cant attempt obstruction. he could have literally used his constitutional powers to end the investigation at any time. There is no attemptx there only is action. The fact that you dont understand this tells us how much your teachers failed you.

        Both Clinton and Nixon were considered guilty of obstruction for altering testimony during a criminal investigation. Obstruction requires the interruption of a criminal inquiry, which does not include intelligence investigations.

        Why are some of you so ignorant to basic facts?

        1. If everyone you talk to is ignorant, odds are that you’re actually the idiot.

          In this case, those odds have reached certainty.

  22. There’s this thing called the stink test. It take a number of forms. One form is the jury trial. Yeah, you’ve got laws against things, but the law can be an ass in all sorts of situations. To remedy that, society developed a stink test of a jury trial. We call it jury nullification when we want to get fancy with the terminology, but, ultimately, what it means it that if one or more people on a jury of 12 thinks that what the law says stinks–using their own subjective criteria, even–they can find the defendant not guilty. To convict somebody of marijuana possession, owning a gun, etc., the conviction has to pass the stink test.

    Impeachment proceedings are another form of the stink test. In fact, it’s two stink tests combined. The first stink test is the political considerations that go into whether a president should be impeached. If congressional politicians think that they’re likely to lose their seats if they impeach the president, they’re not supposed to impeach–regardless of whether what the president did was against the law. If politicians think the case stinks, they can ignore illegal behavior. Bill Clinton lied like a rug, but our elected politicians didn’t have the balls to remove him from office so long as the American people thought it was all about boinking an intern. That’s the second stink test–the one that politicians fear the most. We call this latter stink test “an election”.

    It doesn’t matter whether removing the president from office is done legally–if removing him from office doesn’t pass the stink test, the American people will turn on the politicians who removed him in the next election like a vicious rottweiler. TARP didn’t pass the stink test, so the Tea Party formed outside the Republican party and, eventually, threw John Boehner out of the Speaker’s chair. Most of the politicians who paid the price for supporting TARP were Republicans who couldn’t even win their primaries against Tea Party challengers. TARP didn’t pass the stink test.

    Removing Trump from office at this point will make that political eruption around TARP look like a walk in the park. Nancy Pelosi is smart enough to avoid impeaching Trump because of what it would do to her party since it wouldn’t pass the stink test in the upcoming. What’s wrong with Justin Amash? Elected politicians who ignore the wishes of the constituents who elected them are not principled. They’re wrong. If there’s a better reason not to impeach the President than because the American people don’t want their elected representatives to impeach him, I can’t imagine what that could be–and that’s regardless of whether he’s guilty of obstruction of justice.

  23. Indeed, the entire second volume of the 400-plus page report is dedicated to documenting incident after incident where the president attempted to interrupt, stop, or inhibit Mueller’s investigation into the ties between Trump’s campaign and the Russian government. Those attempts to “influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful,” the report states, but only because “the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”

    That sounds like a defendant giving foolish suggestions to his legal team, and the legal team ignoring those suggestions because they know legal proceedings better than he does.

    1. The President himself could have fired Mueller or told people not to testify. But he wanted other people to do the this to keep his hands clean. Habitual conduct we have seen throughout his life. His legal staff did not follow orders, not to protect the President, but to protect themselves. He obstructed the investigation, everyone know this, Amash is one of those who will admit it. Many more might admit it, if they were allowed to testify.

      1. “But he wanted other people to do the this to keep his hands clean.”

        So, not obstruct you mean?

      2. The whole point of having legal counsel is to tell you what it’s legal for you to do.

        You go up to your lawyer, say, “I’d like to do X”. The lawyer responds, “You can’t legally do X”. So you don’t do X, and no crime has happened.

        So, it isn’t a crime if you follow the advice of your lawyer. Not even if you’d proposed doing something that would have been a crime if you’d gone ahead and done it.

        Though I expect the legal advice in this case was more along the lines of, “Yes, you could legally do that, and then you’d probably be impeached, so you probably don’t want to do that.”

  24. Amash is sooooo full of it. Where else would he object to someone who’s having hir business investigated by a camped-out inspector, with subpoena power, who then goes on to probe friends and family and associates for years, saying “enough” and setting up at least some hoops for the inspector to jump thru? The inspections repeatedly found no violations of the type being sought — not that the inspector would’ve looked at only such things — so we know there was no mens rea. Who would continue to do business with someone if doing so invited the inspector into your business as well? Whether it’s the business of the president of the USA or anyone else?

    Amash should be complaining about the initiators of this probe, not its targets.

  25. But Hillary. Worse criminal than Cheeto. Also shrill. Don’t forget Bill. Benghazi! Uranium!! So what? Everyone does it. The economy! Trains running on time!! Nothing to see here. Now bend over and accept the orange mushroom.

    1. Why are you socking Shreek? Got tired of being called a pedophile for the kiddie porn you posted?

  26. Makes sense that reason likes Amash and Amash is a goofball.

    Whatever. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

    Him hating Trump more than he ever did with Obama or any Democrat just shows how he is a RINO too.

    1. Not just a RINO, a LINO too.

      1. RINO I wouldn’t mind if it got us closer to liberty, but he’s moving us away from it. Not only is the formal threat to remove Trump in favor of Pence, whom I suspect wouldn’t be as good, but it’s standing for quasi-legal tyranny.

  27. The puzzle to me is why object to just this case? Every President has committed impeachable offenses, and usually far worse than this.

    War Powers act.

    Phone and a pen.

    Recess appointments.

    Executive orders, tons and tons of them.

    OTOH, I don’t pay much attention to political insider talk. Did Amash say similar thing about Obama, or earlier Trump malfeasances? Was this particular outburst in response to something specific, just in response to so many other Republicans saying Trump’s actions were not impeachable? Did this come to light just because some Democrat wanted fresh ammunition?

    Tempest in a teapot, methinks.

    1. The examples you cite aren’t persuasive.

      The Obama administration willfully violated the Fourth Amendment rights of 250 million Americans by way of the NSA. The Obama administration assassinated American citizens overseas without the benefit of a trial.

      The Bush the Lesser Administration initiated similar warrantless wiretapping violations of the Fourth Amendment, tortured people in violation of the Eighth Amendment and our treaties, and did things like deny American citizens being held in Guantanamo the benefit of a trial or a lawyer.

      The reason Trump shouldn’t be removed from office even IF IF IF what Amash is saying about the president’s behavior is true isn’t because tu quoque. That’s a logical fallacy. The reason Trump shouldn’t be removed from office over this is because like in the cases of Obama and Bush Jr., the American people don’t support it.

      Bush Jr., for instance, dared Congress to impeach him for protecting the American people from terrorism–while the American people were in the worst throes of anti-terrorist panic. Obama did more or less the same thing. If you want to impeach President Obama because he executed an American born terrorist with a drone strike, go ahead. You’ll get your clock cleaned in the next election. Trump is in the same boat. If you think the obstruction charge is sufficiently condemned by the American people that they’re about to take impeaching him lying down over this, you’re terribly mistaken.

      If Nixon hadn’t resigned, he might well have been removed from office through impeachment proceedings–because the American people probably wanted him removed from office. If the Framers thought it appropriate to remove presidents from office without considering the opinions of the public at large, they wouldn’t have set the rules so that the proceedings are handled by Congress. They would have sent it to the courts somehow. Justice isn’t about winning a popularity contest, but removing presidents from office really should be.

      1. No shit they aren’t persusaive. Neither are these against Trump. Or if you prefer, when all charges are persuasive, none are.

        That’s my point. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is the stop and frisk clause of the Constitution. It leaves the decision entirely to politics.

        1. Pretending that Trump didn’t do these things isn’t the solution to anything–if whether he did them isn’t the primary consideration. The primary consideration is whether Republican voters and the American people want him removed over this count of obstruction of justice–regardless of whether he did it. I don’t think the American people want him removed–even if he’s guilty. And if that’s the truth, then why quibble over whether he’s guilty of obstruction?

          Red herrings are still distractions even if they’re true.

  28. How often do prosecutors exonerate the targets of their investigations instead of saying they do not have enough evidence to merit further effort?

    Unless Amash elaborates on what he thinks are impeachable actions in the Mueller report and takes action on them, then these are irresponsible accusations. Make a case, or hold your peace. Don’t throw mud, because you are dirtying up everything.

  29. OK. Trump gets investigated on a (you should pardon the expression) trumped up charge based on a fake dossier paid for by Obama and Shrillary. He’s innocent of the charges (they were fairly delusional), but now we’re supposed to impeach him because he didn’t roll over and wave his legs in the air the instant thee (fake) charges were made?

    Look, I don’t like Trump. He’s crass. I don’t think he’s worse than the general run of the political elite. Certainly he’s better than Hillary “to the highest bidder” Clinton. All the impeachment talk is founded in outrage that he, a non-insider (not One Of Us!) won the Presidency.

    The Elites need to do a little soul searching. If they are so annoying that a crass slob like Trump strikes the electorate as preferable, they clearly need to change something about themselves.

    Not that they will. The Political and Social Elites of Britain, America, and Australia have been handed loud wake-up calls; elections that were supposed to be easy victories and instead were stunning upsets. And instead of examining their assumptions they elites of all three countries are screwing around and effectively saying ‘no, no, no. You voted the wrong way. we have to undo this!’

    If they don’t stop that it will end in tears before bedtime. If they don’t like Trump. they’re heads will explode when they see what the irritated electorate comes up with next. The electorate is sending a strong message; “We don’t work for you, YOU work for US!”

  30. “When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of liberty—crumbles.”

    Amash is right. Plenty of evidence shows that state of affairs is a sign of democracy and personal freedom crumbling and the rise of authoritarians and kelptocrats. For the unforgivable insubordination of being honest about the Trump situation, Amash will face a very well funded republican opponent in 2020. That is the modern GOP reward for thinking independently and actually seeing and accepting truth for what it is. The GOP no longer tolerates any deviation from the party line because party is above country, truth and reason.

    Here’s how journalist Jane Mayer described the beginning of the end of the formerly pro-democracy GOP and the rise of an intolerant pro-authoritarian, anti-democracy party of, by and for rich people in her 2017 book, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. The donor summit gathering was addressed by John Cornyn (R-TX) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) in January 2009 as a reaction to Obama’s 2008 election. Cornyn represented the republican establishment and DeMint represented an aggressive far right, non-compromising anti-government ideology that would not tolerate dissent or ideological diversity:

    The highlight of the Koch summit in 2009 was an uninhibited debate about what conservatives should do next in the face of electoral defeat. As the donors and other guests dined […] they watched a passionate argument unfold that encapsulated the stark choice ahead. . . . . Cornyn was rated the second most conservative republican in the Senate . . . . But he was also, as one former aide put it “very much a constitutionalist” who believed it was occasionally necessary to compromise in politics.

    Poised on the other side of the moderator was the South Caroline Senator Jim DeMint, a conservative provocateur who defined the outermost antiestablishment frings of the republican party . . . . Before his election to congress, DeMint had run as advertising agency in South Carolina. He understood how to sell, and what he was pitching that night was an approach to politics that according to historian Sean Wilenz would have been recognizable to DeMint’s forebears from the Palmetto state as akin to the radical nullification of federal power advocated in the 1820s by the slavery defender John C. Calhoun.

    . . . . Cornyn spoke in favor of the Republican Party fighting its way back to victory by broadening its appeal to a broader swath of voters, including moderates. . . . . the former aide explained . . . . “He believes in making the party a big tent. You can’t win unless you get more votes.”

    In contrast, DeMint portrayed compromise as surrender. He had little patience for the slow-moving process of constitutional government. He regarded many of his Senate colleagues as timid and self-serving. The federal government posed such a dire threat to the dynamism of the American economy, in his view, that anything less than all-out war on regulations and spending was a cop-out. . . . . Rather than compromising on their principles and working with the new administration, DeMint argued, Republicans needed to take a firm stand against Obama, waging a campaign of massive resistance and obstruction, regardless of the 2008 election outcome.

    As the participants continued to cheer him on, in his folksy southern way, DeMint tore into Cornyn over one issue in particular. He accused Cornyn of turning his back on conservative free-market principles and capitulating to the worst kind of big government spending, with his vote earlier that fall in favor of the Treasury Department’s massive bailout of failing banks. . . . . In hopes of staving off economic disaster, Bush’s Treasury Department begged Congress to approve the massive $700 billion emergency bailout known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

    This country, democracy and the rule of law are all under attack and in very deep trouble.

    1. How much should a political party be driven by ideological principle or be driven by winning elections at any cost?

      In many ways, it must be some mix of the two driving approaches, but the less ideologically driven a party is, the more it is driven by mutual back scratching that leads to corruption and incoherent policy that limits distinction from one party to another. Under that, there are no real choices except which set of cronies you want to belong to.

      1. There is a anti-corruption factor at play, the rule of law. At present it is under constant attack, e.g., Trump says the role of the attorney General is to protect the president from the law.

        There is an anti-bias, anti-ideology ideology, pragmatic rationalism, that looks for a greater role of less biased facts and less biased conscious reason (~ logic) in policymaking ( https://dispol.blogspot.com/search?q=pragmatic+rationalism ). It won’t be perfect because nothing humans can do in politics can ever be perfect, but it would be better than liberalism, conservatism, capitalism, socialism, communism, anarchy, minarchy, libertarianism, fascism, kleptocracy, Christianity, etc.

        It is past time for two-party regime change, two-party ideology change and its replacement with the rise of evidence- and reason-driven politics.

        1. Germaine
          May.19.2019 at 12:41 pm
          “There is a anti-corruption factor at play, the rule of law….”

          Does it take tiny hands to grasp at such straws? Or just stupidity?

    2. “…Plenty of evidence shows that state of affairs is a sign of democracy and personal freedom crumbling and the rise of authoritarians and kelptocrats…”

      You should seek help; you need it badly.

      1. I stand by the facts. Radical right, authoritarian, anti-civil rights billionaires and multimillionaires took over the GOP after Obama won in 2008. That is a matter of fact, not opinion. Trump is openly an authoritarian, is a matter of fact, not opinion. My politics is data-driven, not ideology-driven.

        I’m not the one in need of help here. On the other hand, people who can’t handle facts . . . . .

        1. “That is a matter of fact, not opinion.”

          No it’s an opinion.

        2. An authoritarian would let an investigation into themselves go on for 2 years?

        3. Germaine
          May.19.2019 at 12:33 pm
          “I stand by the facts.”

          You have no facts, and you are too stupid to understand that.
          Do us a favor: Fuck off and die where we can’t smell you.

        4. With not a care in the world about what led up to this? No curiosity at all about what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Clinton, etc., did to cause all this to happen? How about we get to the bottom of this first, before impeaching anybody?

    3. The thing is, he was right about TARP. It wasn’t about staving off economic disaster, it was about making sure that the high rollers who’d made stupid decisions didn’t take a haircut, that the cost would be dumped on the taxpayers.

      This was exactly the sort of situation the FDIC was created for, but the bailout happened instead because the wrong people were going to take the hit if financial institutions that had made stupid decisions were allowed to fail.

      TARP was probably the worst case of crony capitalism in our lifetimes, DeMint was right to attack it.

    4. So Demint said Republicans should resist and obstruct, like the Democrats are doing to President Trump everyday. Demint is a bad guy for saying this but the Democrats for good guys for saying and doing the same thing. Got it!

      Hey, have you ever heard of the never trumpers who are republicans? Trump has plenty of Republican establishment opponents. How many democrats opposed Obama?

    5. By the way, any democrats who criticize the investigation by Attorney General Barr are committing obstruction of Justice. I am going by the Democrats’ definition.

  31. Amash, like Biden, has exposure to China.

    He NEEDS impeachment. At least as a delaying tactic.

    1. Well that is funny. Amash on impeachment has completely buried Amash’s ties to China in search results.

      The man knows how to play.

      I’m going to keep looking. I saw it last week.

      1. From 2010 Amash China

        The Miles TV ad, which began airing Friday night, criticizes Amash for ties to his family’s Chinese tool importing business.

        “Justin co-owns a factory in China that manufactures the tools he sells in America,” the ad’s narrator says. “Justin is not a fighter for American jobs, he’s the creator of jobs in China.”

      2. Google does know how to reward those who advance its aims.

        It isn’t buried on DuckDuckGo.

  32. Amash – Dynamic Source International

    Amash’s brother and campaign spokesman, John Amash, called Miles’ commercials false because they have labeled a company they own in China — Dynamic Source International — as a “manufacturer” with “factories” in China.

    Dynamic Source International, which is owned by Justin Amash and his brothers, employs 25 and “facilitates” Michigan Industrial Tools’ business by ensuring tools they buy in China meet their quality standards and are packaged correctly, John Amash said.

    1. Let the ratfucking of Amash begin!

      GIT HIM! HE IS TRYING TO EXCAPE THE GOP PLANTATION!

      1. I don’t care what he does. He can escape to anywhere.

        What I’m looking for is why he is calling for impeachment without making his case.

        I suspect that “impeachment” is less damaging to him than “China”.

        1. The Mueller report makes the case for impeachment. That’s the point he’s making.

          1. And he’s wrong and Dems and leftists are losing their shit. That’s the point you’re making.

          2. Tony
            May.19.2019 at 12:16 pm
            “The Mueller report makes the case for impeachment. That’s the point he’s making.”

            Shitbag, here, sees “up”, but given his stupidity, says “down”.

          3. It also has the seeds for a lengthy investigation of various democrat politicians and appointees. Then Barr will put many, many of them in prison. Where most democrats belong.

      2. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug
        May.19.2019 at 10:23 am
        “GIT HIM! HE IS TRYING TO EXCAPE THE GOP PLANTATION!”

        You lost, you pathetic piece of shit. Go whine someplace where you’re not held in universal contempt, turd.

  33. Amash: a textbook example of how a classical liberal turns into a statist, and how the term “liberal” took on its new American meaning.

  34. Funny how all these H&R “libertarians” are dumping Amash for the Big Government Aborto-Freak Con Man.

    1. You’re a retard.

      Supporting people because of whom they are is irrational, and opposing people on our side when they’re wrong is principled.

      1. Because you’ve read the report and came to a different conclusion, right?

        Surely you’re not simply taking Trump at his word that he’s innocent.

        1. “Because you’ve read the report and came to a different conclusion, right?

          Surely you’re not simply taking Trump at his word that he’s innocent.”

          Did you not read what I wrote above, or did you not understand what I wrote?

          1. No, he didn’t. Tony isn’t very bright.

      2. He’s also a pedophile and child pornographer

    2. “Funny how all these H&R “libertarians” are dumping Amash for the Big Government Aborto-Freak Con Man.”

      Funny how your stupidity is so predictable. And boring.
      You lost, loser. Make the world a better place; fuck off and die.

    3. “Funny how all these H&R ‘libertarians’ are dumping Amash for the Big Government Aborto-Freak Con Man.”

      I’m so thrilled you recovered your password so you can continue to provide left-libertarian insights like this.

      Indeed, Drumpf’s documented history of radical anti-abortion activism should terrify any libertarian. Those extreme socially conservative views were second only to his anti-immigration rhetoric in helping him secure his party’s nomination.

      #DrumpfIsATheocrat
      #(DontLetTheNudeModelTrophyWifeFoolYou)
      #(OrThePornstarAffairs)

    4. Are you forgetting Amash is a SoCon aborto-freak christfag?

  35. LIBERTARIAN MOMENT!

  36. I’m no fan of Trump, nor of some of his behavior during the investigation. And, in general, I am an Amash admirer. But, I do believe the real, important criminal acts were committed by those who used the bogus, politically-generated dossier in order to spy on the presidential campaign of the opposing party and then, when that didn’t produce the desired electoral result, attempted to hog-tie his administration for years (while also trying to cover their crimes). When we’re done investigating and prosecuting everyone behind all of *that*, then get back to me on how Trump tried to frustrate the baseless investigation launched by partisan deep-state enemies.

    1. This is why you will be replaced by your betters.

      1. God look at you. You can’t even muster any real vitriol, you’re totally broken

      2. Why ‘I will be replaced by my betters’? What?

      3. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland
        May.19.2019 at 12:45 pm
        “This is why you will be replaced by your betters.”

        Bigoted assholes are ‘the betters’ of piles of animal manure; not sure you qualify.

        1. Because those who disagree with you are bigots..? You know, too much semen in your diet can cause brain damage.

          1. “You know, too much semen in your diet can cause brain damage.”

            I’m assuming you know this first hand and accuse others of suffering as you do.
            Fuck off and die, lefty ignoramus.

  37. You people need to go to a Republican cocksucking website if that’s what you want to spend all your time doing. Or how about an airport bathroom if you want to be literal. If the entire universe were the same except Donald Trump had a (D) after his name, every single one of you idiots would be beside yourself trying to figure out how to deal with an actual bona fide scandal instead of Benghazi bullshit you choke-jerked to for years on end. What is the point of you people if all you are going to ever do is defend every Republican, even the scummiest, dumbest, and most obviously corrupt of them, just because they are Republicans?

    1. “You people need to go to a Republican cocksucking ”

      You need to stop using gay sex as an insult.

      1. “Or how about an airport bathroom if you want to be literal. ”

        I mean, really, you’re ao upset from continually losing and being utterly impotent that you can’t stop using your own behavior as an insult. That’s comical.

      2. Hey Republican women suck cock too!

      3. How is it an insult? I’m implying that the Republicans whose cocks you so mindlessly suck are enjoying the service.

    2. They did a horrible job pretending that Trump was guilty because of the facts, no political considerations in that whatsoever, nosiree.

      You can’t blame independents for seeing through that shit.

      “He’s guilty because we know he is and we need him to be now, how could he not be after all our screaming?” Isn’t really fact-based.

    3. The requirement for impeachment is a majority of the house. Nothing else.

      So far, the most impeachable presidents have been Jackson and Clinton.

    4. What is the point of you people?

      Good question, best evaluated and treated by a psychotherapist.

  38. I don’t mind Amash’s opinions on Trump or impeachment — though if Amash actually bothered to make an example-based argument, it would really help. What bothers me is the entirely unsupported and extra-statutory attack on Barr. Once again, Amash gives no specific examples is accusing Barr of effectively abusing his office; Amash never once quotes from, or even cites to, the Mueller Report or the Barr Letter. Amash offers absolutely nothing to suggest that Barr has in any way deviated from what the law directs.

  39. Amash is technically correct because the threshold for impeachment is “high crimes and misdemeanors” – which is an undefined term. In other words, the threshold for impeachment is whatever Congress says it is. If they wanted to, they could make tying your shoes the wrong way into grounds for impeachment.

    Granted, the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is usually pretty strongly influenced by precedent and history – which do set the bar rather higher than tying your shoes the wrong way – but there is nothing in the Constitution which compels Congress to honor that precedent.

  40. Impeachment is a true dilemma. Nobody has ever been more impeachment-worthy than Donald Trump. If you believe in facts, that is an inescapable conclusion. (I realize most of you will chuck facts into the nearest shitpile if they are inconvenient for Republican politicians.) Not impeaching means no future president can be impeached, by precedent. God help us if there’s ever a worse president, but never underestimate Republicans. They seem to be getting worse each time, so who knows what slimy pond creature they’ll come up with next time.

    But impeachment will be a symbolic act given the amoral psychopathy of the Republican party, which controls the Senate. They will actually, legally exonerate Trump (something he wrongly claims has already happened). So who benefits? Trump will be truly wounded by having that asterisk next to his name, but he likes nothing more than playing the victim, and impeachment will only give more rage fuel to the cousinfucking dumbfucks who attend his rallies and vote.

    The problem is the assumption that impeachment is a sacred legal tradition that works as intended. It’s never worked. One president resigned by threat of impeachment. That’s its track record. It’s one more broken part of a very broken constitutional system. But progressive voters can be idiots too, and the problem is explaining why the system at hand is broken (Mueller could have figured that out if he wanted to) and won’t result in Trump’s ouster.

    Of course since Trump can’t break 41% with a hot economy, his being in office is the best gift to Democrats there is, so I think as long he doesn’t invade Iran we should all just relax.

    1. No libertarian should push for impeachment based on a process crime. Obstruction of justice is what prosecutors use to punish someone when all else fails. It did not work on Bill Clinton and it will not work here. As much as I do not like Trump I would rather see him fail to win reelection. That is more fitting.

      1. Meh, if he were to shoot his arresting cop on 5th avenue, that’d be a process crime too. Let’s keep our standards high for the man in charge of the nukes.

    2. “his being in office is the best gift to Democrats there is”

      I disagree. It is simply unacceptable for the President of the United States to be a 3-decade Russian intelligence asset. Pelosi and the #BlueTsunami House must begin impeachment ASAP.

      #TrumpRussia
      #Impeach
      #Resist

      1. Hey, Tom Perez is posting here! Hi Tom! Love the field of candidates. Soo…diverse.

    3. Have you never studied the Grant presidency? Easily the most corrupt administration ever. The worst White House scandal ever, Teapot Dome, occurred on his watch.

      1. In addition to being irrational, Tony is also ignorant.

        I’m not attacking him personally, there, so much as making an observation. It’s a syllogism, really.

        Premise: We’ve seen Tony make irrational arguments every day for years.
        Premise: We’ve seen Tony demonstrate his ignorance every day for years.
        Conclusion: Tony is irrational and ignorant.

        1. I’m amazed you can get out a post with so few misspellings while your jaw is so widely open and your tongue so expertly combing Donald Trump’s long, gray pubes like some kind of gutter cat.

          1. “I’m amazed you can get out a post with so few misspellings while your jaw is so widely open and your tongue so expertly combing Donald Trump’s long, gray pubes like some kind of gutter cat.”

            Loser shitbag here sees this as a response to an accurate description of brain-damage, thereby proving it.

      2. Teapot Dome was a scandal in the 1920s.

        1. the argument still stands. in fact, that reenforces it if there was more than one incident worse than anything Trump has done.

          What Trump did is not the most impeachable offense ever committed by far in office by far.

          P.S. FWIW, a Vice President once shot and killed a hero of the American Revolution.

      3. Whataboutism: Grant edition!

      4. Teapot Dome occurred under the Harding administration, and it was small-time compared to the graft that goes on daily under recent administrations.

        So, you you really had to work to get everything that wrong.

    4. Tony
      May.19.2019 at 12:36 pm
      “Impeachment is a true dilemma.”
      Opinion from a source known to be abysmally stupid.

      “Nobody has ever been more impeachment-worthy than Donald Trump.”
      Bullshit claim, unspported by evidence.

      “If you believe in facts, that is an inescapable conclusion.”
      “Facts” notably not in evidence.
      One more drunken rant from the resident shitbag.

      1. Facts that you haven’t made a single effort to read for yourself. I don’t expect you read much.

        1. Tony
          May.19.2019 at 11:54 pm
          “Facts that you haven’t made a single effort to read for yourself. I don’t expect you read much.”

          Loser shitbag here keeps claiming “FACTS!”, and yet not a single one ever shows up. And then the shitbag claims other’s can’t read!
          Does being a lefty cause brain damage, or do you have to be brain-damaged to become one?

  41. So the first part of the report concluded that Trump’s campaign wasn’t colluding with the Russian government, but the second part of the report documented “incident after incident where the president attempted to interrupt, stop, or inhibit Mueller’s investigation into the ties between Trump’s campaign and the Russian government.” How does that work? X didn’t happen, but you obstructed justice by trying to prevent us from investigating whether X happened? This is all nonsensical on its face, and it’s telling that Amash’s tweetstorm says that Trump engaged in impeachable behavior without naming specific examples.

    But more important, wouldn’t an actual libertarian be more disturbed by domestic spying — like FISA warrants on a political campaign, or FBI informants trying to set up meetings with people inside a political campaign?

    I used to respect Justin Amash. This is pathetic.

  42. I’m a TRUE libertarian, not like you Rethuglican CUCKS, so anything federal law enforcement says is good enough for me. I stand with the true libertarian hero Andrew Weissman! All REAL libertarians accept a prosecutor’s report without skepticism.

  43. President Fucking Moron finally shoots and kills a stranger on Fifth Avenue, shits in her mouth before fellating it, chops up the corpse and serves it well done, with ketchup, at Trump Grill. Republicans blame Comey, vow full investigation. Of Comey.

    1. Trump didn’t do any of those things.

      Comey admitted that he knew the Steele dossier was funded by opposition research before he submitted the application to spy on the Trump campaign.

      It has recently been revealed that some information was submitted in an application to FISA court to spy on the Trump campaign by witnesses that the FBI had already stopped using because it was determined that as witnesses they were no longer credible.

      There are three ongoing investigations into the FBI’s spying on Trump’s campaign, and until those reports become available, dismissing Comey’s behavior in this is not warranted.

      The fact is that a Democrat administration using the FBI to spy on a Republican campaign (or visa versa) is extremely disturbing, should be investigated, and the air should be cleared.

      What we do know is that there is no solid evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 election, and if you’re hanging your impeachment hat on the fact that Trump tried to obstruct an investigation into his behavior that he will claim to have known was bogus, then you’re going to have a hard time defending that impeachment in the court of public opinion.

      If the Democrats vote to impeach Trump, I wouldn’t expect the Democrats would have much of a chance of retaking the White House in 2020. If they managed to remove him from office, the Democrats might not have a legitimate chance to retake the White House until Pence’s second term is over in 2028.

      1. Every week is Shark Week for Ken Shutlz.

        THe FBI was investigating the Trump campaign because it had 150 contacts with Russians. You’d want an investigation if they had (D)s after their names.

        And that’s why you’re a useless Republican fleshlight.

        1. Tony
          “…THe FBI was investigating the Trump campaign because it had 150 contacts with Russians. You’d want an investigation if they had (D)s after their names….”

          Loser shitbag here is still grasping at straws and treating brain-damaged hypotheticals as reality.
          Does being a lefty cause brain damage, or do you have to be brain-damaged to become one?

        2. Serious question for Tony: Do you think Mueller should have investigated both major parties, since the Dems also had contacts with Russians, including a dossier with intel from Russian sources?

    2. Blowhard Woodchip
      May.19.2019 at 4:49 pm
      “President Fucking Moron finally shoots and kills a stranger on Fifth Avenue, shits in her mouth before fellating it, chops up the corpse and serves it well done, with ketchup, at Trump Grill. Republicans blame Comey, vow full investigation. Of Comey.”

      Fucking lefty ignoramus makes up story to make sure everyone knows fucking lefty ignoramus is a fucking lefty ignoramus!
      Success!

  44. “When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of liberty—crumbles.”

    —-Justin Amash

    This isn’t just about the rule of law. Impeachment is about winning or losing a popularity contest. If the American people don’t want Trump removed from office because he obstructed a bogus investigation, then who is Justin Amash to stand in the way waving the Constitution? The Framers could have given impeachment to the Supreme Court but didn’t.

    Justin Amash has as much right to voice his opinion as anybody, but if he thinks that removing Donald Trump from office by way of impeachment will lead to the Constitution and the rule of law, then he’s delusional. If they manage to remove Trump from office by way of impeachment, we may see a complete breakdown in the rule of law and the foundation of liberty.

    I was in LA during the Rodney King riots. Trump supporters probably wouldn’t act like that. The targets of their wrath are likely to be more calculated. Over the long haul, it might be worse than the LA riots.

    That’s what happens when there’s a breakdown in legitimacy. The old rule of thumb for comparative legitimacy used to be the number of police per capita necessary to maintain order. Riots are a complete breakdown in legitimacy–the foundation of the rule of law. It’s one thing not to have the executive you want. Quite another to convince people that the system itself is illegitimate.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)

    1. Yup. Trying to force DT out of office via total bullshit means is one of only a couple things that could actually kick off a massive wave of violence, if not outright civil war. Gun confiscation also comes to mind. Other than those it’s hard to think what else could… But why try either, since neither serves any good purpose?

  45. Trump lies again, this time about “shipping” migrants to “sanctuary cities,” is corrected (again) by overworked “acting” DHS chief:

    Acting Homeland Security chief says migrants will not be sent to sanctuary cities

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/19/politics/kevin-mcaleenan-trump-sanctuary-cities-migrants/index.html

    1. Oh, GOODIE! A CNN cite for a story on Trump!
      Brain transplant didn’t take, right?

  46. General Cheeto promises to cancel Iran just like he did with North Korea if they ever, ever say stupid shit again, and this time he means it!

    https://nypost.com/2019/05/19/trump-vows-to-end-iran-if-it-threatens-us-again/

    1. Blowhard Woodchip
      May.19.2019 at 6:53 pm
      “General Cheeto promises to cancel Iran just like he did with North Korea if they ever, ever say stupid shit again, and this time he means it!”

      Fucking lefty ignoramus BW makes up shit and posts it! And this time he means it!
      Fuck off and die.

  47. “Here are my principal conclusions:
    1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.”
    Something approaching evidence might help your claim. I see nothing of the sort.

    “2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.”
    Something approaching evidence might help your claim. I see nothing of the sort.

    “3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.”
    Uh, yeah, OK, uh…what in hell is that supposed to mean?

    “4. Few members of Congress have read the report.”
    Gee, you could help by citing the parts that support your claim, and I see you’ve done nothing of the sort.
    Did you not get enough attention with your forelock-tugging during the Kavanaugh hearings? Are you hoping that TDS victims will now see you as other than a whiny politico hoping for some ink after a Sunday on a talk show?
    Fail.

    1. 1. If the AG misrepresented Mueller’s report, Mueller is free to go public and say so. He hasn’t.

      There’s a reason for that: He wants to keep the narrative about Barr misrepresenting the report alive, but the only non-perjuorous testimony he could give would end it. So he remains silent.

      2. Trivially true, anything 50% +1 House members regard as impeachable is impeachable, and the House majority is Democratic. Trump being a Republican is impeachable conduct.

  48. Given that impeachable conduct can be pretty much anything congress doesn’t like, this is most certainly true.

  49. “See look! There’s a unicorn fairy flying through the sky. I don’t care that you and 50,000 other people has spent 2-years taken pictures, blood samples, urine samples, probed it to death and concluded it was just a cloud… IT’S a bloody unicorn fairy!!!!”, Screams Justin Amash.

  50. I think Trump probably committed obstruction but it’s not even in the top 10 of my complaints regarding his presidency. Through Clinton, we’ve already established that engaging in clearly criminal conduct isn’t enough to warrant removal from office if it doesn’t tangibly relate to the office of the presidency. If I’m drafting articles of impeachment, it’s about Trump blowing up the budget, bombing countries without a declaration of war and declaring national emergencies to fund a stupid border wall. Trump acting like a manic, petulant buffoon while being investigated is unsurprising as he acts that way regardless.

  51. Uh, the same Justin Amash who is co-owner of a Chinese manufacturing company that exports tools to his home state of Michigan? That Justin Amash who doesn’t like Trump because Amash’s pocketbook might be getting thinner?

    Well, yes then. Let’s impeach Trump and save Amash’s Chinese Connection.

  52. I Reason hurting for content? This has been the lead story on the home page for two days, and it’s not all that major of a story.

  53. If Trump engaged in obstruction of justice then why didn’t Mueller bring charges? Barr presented conclusions from the Mueller report. He used direct quotes. He also gave his opinion and identified it as such. If Barr actually did misrepresent anything, then you could have given specific examples of it. But you can’t because didn’t.

  54. Rep. Justin Amash, a politician with little to no name recognition and a potential political opponent of Trump Says Trump ‘Has Engaged in Impeachable Conduct’

    Trump is guilty of many things but his actions have not been ones that are impeachable.

    “When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of liberty—crumbles.”

    —-Justin Amash

    Except the constitutional reasons for impeachment do not appear to have been triggered. Loyalty to ones political and financial self over the rule of the law will also cause liberty to crumble.

  55. Justin is positioning himself to get the top spot on the Libertarian POTUS ticket.

    Yawn.

    1. Can’t bring yourself to vote for either a Democrat or the fat orange psychopath? Vote libertarian! We won’t win, but you’ll feel good about yourself.

      1. Loser shitbag here is now claiming ‘we’ regarding libertarians!
        GJ got my vote last time, but I was pleased when the hag lost, thinking at best, we’d ducked one more disastrous SCOTUS appointment.
        Instead, we got:
        1) DeVos
        2) Gorsuch
        3) Kavanuagh
        4) Ajit Pai, end net price fixing
        5) Major reduction in the growth of regulations.
        6) Dow +35%
        7) Unemployment at 3.0% (!)
        8) The US Manufacturing Index soared to a 33 year high
        9) Got repeal of the national medical insurance mandate.
        10) Withdrawal from Paris climate agreement.
        11) Not sure about the tax reform; any “reform” that leaves me subisdizing Musk’s customers is not what I hoped for. Let Musk run a company for once. But cutting taxes is good.
        12) Pulled support for the $13 billion Hudson Tunnel project.
        13) More than 16,000 jobs have been cut from the federal leviathan
        14) MIGHT have a deal to de-nuke NK.
        15) Killed monbeam’s choo-choo
        And finally:
        15) Still making lefties steppin and fetchin like their pants is on fire and their asses are catchin’
        Not sure a LP POTUS could do the same.

        1. Most of those I feel are bad things. And you would too if someone did them but had a (D) after his name.

          1. Loser shitbag here has an active fantasy life:
            “Most of those I feel are bad things.”
            As if ‘feelings’ had to so with any form of intelligence.

            “And you would too if someone did them but had a (D) after his name.”
            As if a brain-dead hypothetical constituted ‘evidence’ in an argument.
            Do you have to be brain-damaged to become a lefty, or does doing so cause it?

  56. Man, that report must be mighty complicated for Amash to have not yet found the ‘actions’ which he claims justify impeachment.
    Why, it’s almost like he made that up just prior to his appearance on “Meet One More Suck Ass Politico”; on CNN, right?

    1. I’m sure you’ll get around to reading the redacted report as soon as you’re finished with The Brothers Karamazov.

      1. Tony
        May.20.2019 at 9:07 pm
        “I’m sure you’ll get around to reading the redacted report as soon as you’re finished with The Brothers Karamazov.”

        Loser shitbag here claims ‘the facts’ are on his side, and yet can’t seem to come up with anything beyond blaming others for ‘not reading the report’ to search for these fantasy “facts”.
        Do you have to be brain-damaged to become a lefty, or does doing so cause it?
        .

  57. I like Amash for a lot of his policy positions… But DAMN does that man have some serious TDS. As I have said 1,000 times before, Trump is not my idea of a perfect politician… That is Thomas Jefferson followed by Ron Paul… But the level of hyperventilating people are doing over him is unwarranted. He’s basically a Rockefeller Republican, or Conservative Democrat from the midwest, of a couple decades ago. Nothing about that should be very jarring to anybody…

    1. “Nothing about that should be very jarring to anybody…”

      1) He’s Trump.
      2) He beat the hag.
      All else is commentary.

      1. Pretty much. They really did believe they had a permanent majority on lock down. That Trump defeated them is an unforgivable sin.

        1. They’ve been working for decades towards a one party state. Forced demographic change, for instance. They’d thought that they’d finally arrived at the day when it began.

          I’m more than a little afraid of what they’re going to do the next time they get Congress and the White house at the same time. (It IS going to happen, eventually.) They’re basically certain to go batshit crazy in an effort to lock down the federal government as perpetually Democratic.

          Packing the Supreme court, making all the territories and DC into states, mandated gerrymandering under the guise of outlawing gerrymandering, political censorship, naturalizing all the illegal aliens. There’s a long list of horribles they’re discussing now, and I think they’re serious about it.

          1. Pretty much. I really do wonder what level of crazy things will go to… The only other alternatives are things getting REAL before that happens because of some event… Or perhaps the hardcore crazies breaking the party, and it swings heavily back towards sanity.

            We’ll see which one ends up happening.

  58. Da vast wite wing conspiracy wading in da ocean leaves no tracks.

  59. Alaska chicks kick ass! https://youtu.be/6den-SEYXb0

  60. Amash is a lawyer. Why doesn’t he prepare an indictment listing the crimes? Just to make his case.

  61. Anyone else notice that my post with the link to Amash’s financial disclosure document got pulled from this comment thread?

    Guess Reason decided to take up the leftist practice of deleting comments they don’t like…which should surprise no one, considering they abandoned libertarianism as soon as Trump got elected.

    1. Disregard…my bad. I posted it on the other Amash story. My fault entirely.

  62. “In fact, Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.”

    And yet, no one ever seems to detail even one of these “multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice”

  63. “When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of liberty—crumbles.”

    Amash forgets that loyalty to Clinton and the Dems by the alphabet agencies is what brought this investigation into being. Why is he not speaking up about how the FISA court was hoodwinked because they were outright lied to. The FISA court does not investigate the information presented to them. They have to trust the information is correct and has been verified. Obviously it was not even though those presenting the information certified that it was.
    We have not heard from Amash about any of the illegalities regarding the predicate for the investigation in the first place or the fact that it would be ridiculous to prosecute Trump for obstructing an investigation which has cleared him of the original crime he was falsely accused of.
    Personally, I think Amash made a pretty stupid statement which will cost him dearly in his future political career.

    1. Amash forgets that loyalty to Clinton and the Dems by the alphabet agencies is what brought this investigation into being.

      He’s not stupid; he didn’t forget. He’s just the usual asshole from DC working in his own self-interest.

  64. […] the libertarian Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) that President Donald Trump has engaged in “impeachable conduct” continues to generate praise, blowback, and other reactions (including […]

  65. […] from the libertarian Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) that President Donald Trump has engaged in “impeachable conduct” continues to generate praise, blowback, and other reactions (including […]

  66. […] the libertarian Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) that President Donald Trump has engaged in “impeachable conduct” continues to generate praise, blowback, and other reactions (including […]

  67. […] the libertarian Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) that President Donald Trump has engaged in “impeachable conduct” continues to generate praise, blowback, and other reactions (including […]

  68. […] Saturday, Amash became the first Republican member of Congress to suggest that Trump should face impeachment proceedings for his attempts to interfere in the Mueller probe. […]

  69. […] Saturday, Amash became the first Republican member of Congress to suggest that Trump should face impeachment proceedings for his attempts to interfere in the Mueller probe. […]

  70. […] Saturday, Amash became the first Republican member of Congress to suggest that Trump should face impeachment proceedings for his attempts to interfere in the Mueller probe. […]

  71. […] the libertarian Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) that President Donald Trump has engaged in “impeachable conduct” continues to generate praise, blowback, and other reactions (including […]

  72. […] Saturday, Amash became the first Republican member of Congress to suggest that Trump should face impeachment proceedings for his attempts to interfere in the Mueller probe. […]

  73. […] 12:00: Libertarian Bashing (Link) […]

  74. At least one thing Amash says makes absolutely no sense at all. He claims that in extremely partisan times like we have now, the risk is that Congress would be less likely to use impeachment to hold the president responsible for his actions.

    This claim is completely nonsensical and ahistorical. In the first 220 years of the Republic, we had 1 impeachment (Andrew Johnson). Now we are on the verge of the second impeachment in 20 years, based largely on extreme partisanship (using the results of an investigation that began with no evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign and went on for 2 years with no evidence).

    The extreme partisanship makes it more likely that we’ll have impeachment proceedings, whether deserving or not.

  75. […] Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) is not the only self-described libertarian Republican to conclude from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s two-volume report that President Donald Trump engaged in impeachable conduct. […]

  76. […] Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) is not the only self-described libertarian Republican to conclude from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s two-volume report that President Donald Trump engaged in impeachable conduct. […]

  77. […] asked during a town hall meeting last month whether he fears his pro-impeachment comments could leave him vulnerable to a primary challenge by Michigan State Rep. Jim Lower, Rep. Justin […]

Comments are closed.