Justin Amash

Amash Doubles Down: 'Some of the President's Actions Were Inherently Corrupt'

Whether or not you agree with Amash, his demeanor this week stands in stark contrast to how most of Trump's defenders—and the president himself—have reacted to Amash's statements.

|

Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) has doubled down on his assessment that President Donald Trump engaged in impeachable conduct, as detailed by the report from Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller.

"Mueller's report describes a consistent effort by the president to use his office to obstruct or otherwise corruptly impede the Russian election interference investigation because it put his interests at risk," Amash writes at the beginning of a 20-tweet thread highlighting a number of incidents outlined in the Mueller report where Trump appears to have attempted to shut down the investigation.

Specifically, Amash points to Trump's request to the FBI director that the bureau stop investigating Michael Flynn, Trump's order that then–White House Counsel Don McGahn have Mueller removed from the investigation (a demand McGahn ignored), and Trump's subsequent decision to tell McGahn to lie about the incident in public records.

"Some of the president's actions were inherently corrupt," Amash concludes. "Other actions were corrupt—and therefore impeachable—because the president took them to serve his own interests."

On 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. In that statement, also posted to Twitter, the 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. He also warned that putting Trump's interests ahead of the country's would put the rule of law at risk.

The reactions from the president and his supporters have been instructive. Trump lashed out by calling Amash "a loser." House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) went on television to declare that Amash "votes more with Nancy Pelosi than he ever votes with me," which isn't even close to being true. The House Freedom Caucus, which Amash co-founded, voted to condemn him for having the audacity to exercise his freedom to criticize the president. A Trump-supporting state representative announced plans to primary Amash in 2020.

Though it all, the libertarian-leaning congressman has maintained a level head. He's turned down what are surely endless requests to appear on cable news, but he did take time to talk to a group of schoolchildren from Michigan who were visiting the Capitol this week.

He has behaved, in other words, like a dignified representative of the people who is thoughtfully approaching one of the most serious questions a member of Congress can consider: Should the sitting president be removed from office?

Whether or not you agree with Amash's conclusions on that question, his demeanor over the course of this week—and his rational outline of his specific criticisms of Trump—stand in stark contrast to how most of Trump's defenders and the president himself have reacted. That doesn't mean Amash is right, of course, but it should give conservatives pause before they launch into another round of histrionics.

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.

302 responses to “Amash Doubles Down: 'Some of the President's Actions Were Inherently Corrupt'

  1. Why no mention of Climate Change and Trump getting the USA out of the Accord de Paris which will result in the end of the world in 12 years?

    1. Trump is a snowflake.

    2. because it put his interests at risk

      No, it was a distraction to getting his job done. Since he had done nothing wrong wrt Russia, this was a complete BS witch hunt, as Trump has repeatedly said. Sorry douche Amash, Trump was trying to get the gov back to business that was being derailed by false, scurrilous charges.

      1. Witch hunt is too lenient a term.

        This IS, and always was, an attempted coup to fully transition to totalitarian global socialism

        1. Which leads me to the question, why hasn’t Reason been on the case? Do the Reason style Libertarians only care about the rule of law when there is a potential (L) involved? Good gawd Reason-oids, a trove of classified materials dealing with FISC and FISA abuse is hitting the public record at a pace unseen in decades, if ever, and there is no lead article? WTF?

        2. It’s time to prosecute all the conspirators against Trump. Plus, all this shit where the democrats decide they can conspire between their thralls in state agencies with congress to invade Trump’s privacy? It needs to stop. If they can do this to a sitting president, the rest of us are fucked.

          Progressives are not compatible with our constitutional republic. Time to show them the door, They must go.

    3. Yah Trump is so bad we should just get rid of him and put in…Joe Biden. Shizzams-no corruption after that!

  2. “Whether or not you agree with Amash” hard to say without smash offering up one piece of analysis and only offering platitudes.

    1. Read his latest series of tweets. He lays out a case of 6 instances from the Mueller report that he claims rise to the level of impeding or obstructing the investigation.

      Say what you want about whether you believe them, but you no longer have the excuse that he hasn’t laid out his case.

      1. And they are all vague or complete crap. Do you agree with Amash that not only does the President not have the power to ask the FBI to stop investigating something it is criminal for him to do so?

        If you want to defend this pile of crap, I would be curious to hear you do it.

        1. John, stop being so vague and lay out your case with specific instances.

          1. It is not my or Trump’s responsibility to prove his innocence. are you retarded?

            1. Of course it is your responsibility. Do you want them to take your Daddy’s Little Helper card away?

              1. AHAHA CHIPPER IS UPSET!!!

              2. That response was incoherent even by Crusty standards.

        2. I don’t think the President should have legal authority to end an investigation into his own potential criminal behavior.

          Trump obviously didn’t end this investigation. That’s not to say he didn’t try to (or so it seems, we haven’t really heard his defense yet). But his subordinates seem to have saved him from actually obstructing. I don’t think Trump should be impeached for his behavior. Full stop.

          1. He could have ended the investigation. Ending an investigation is not obstruction. It is really that simple.

            1. Otherwise, the DOJ has the unilateral ability to remove Article II executive power from the Office of the President. Mueller can’t be terminated “without cause.” That strikes me as ridiculous. Inferior officers stripping the chief executive of his discretionary power over the executive branch based on not even a criminal allegation but merely a national security concern? No fucking way is that how the Constitution works. I don’t think the President could delegate his own authority away, much less some second line officer in a sub-unit of the executive branch.

              Amash is saying that, yes, Rosenstein has the power, based on an unreviewable decision by the Courts, or the President, to create a political sideshow, bad faith investigation, and the President, who is responsible and accountable to the electorate, is powerless to stop it. Even when he knows there is 0% chance of any underlying wrongdoing, when it is divisive, financially wasteful, and being run by the political opposition for the purpose of political gain?

              Survey says: XXX

              1. “Mueller can’t be terminated “without cause.”

                You meant CAN be terminated .

          2. “”That’s not to say he didn’t try to (or so it seems, we haven’t really heard his defense yet). “”

            Try to or just asked? Even the Mueller report noted that Trump had plenty of options he could have used if he really wanted to try to do it. There was not enough trying for Mueller to come out and say obstruction did in fact happen.

          3. Firing Mueller (who had conflicts) does not equal ending the investigation. Just firing Comey didn’t end any investigations (in fact it started an extra investigation that the President allowed to proceed). Also, it’s pretty hard to argue that he had corrupt intent when he did not invoke executive privilege and allowed his lawyer to be interviewed for 30 hours.

          4. Part of the reason for having subordinates in the first place is to give you advice on what you can and can’t do. If I tell my accountant to break a transaction into smaller pieces to avoid reporting it, he tells me that’s illegal, “structuring”, and I then say, “Well, never mind then.”, I’m not guilty of attempted structuring.

            1. YES!!! And that is why Horse-Face Mueller should NOT have released in the report all the little details & conversations Trump had with his counsel & his advisors, as it was none of the public’s or Congress’ business!….It was OK for Mueller to interview them, but as long as none of them actually lied for him or destroyed evidence or were extorted to lie for him , etc, means there was actually no obstruction at all and Horse-Face Mueller knew it & should’ve held a press conference to explain himself!

              Horse-Face Mueller is a longtime DC Swamp Critter/Deep Stater who hates Trump’s guts like all the others & that is why he released the report on a late Friday afternoon with no press conference & made no statements…He knew Trump was not guilty of anything but he wanted to leave it dangling so the Haters could keep the poisonous narrative alive & verily they have!

              1. Mueller wasn’t willing to be the guy to go full Himmler, so he could only manufacture so much.
                And that’s what all the bs “obstruction” speculation was for so that Ds, corporate press, and useful idiots (to be extremely generous) like Amash could carry on the coup.
                It is simultaneously a joke and the greatest crisis in US history since the Civil War.
                How postmodern

                1. Your use of the word “manufacture” evoked in me a thought I had one day while this whole sordid fiasco was unfolding, at around the middle of it when it was crystal clear that there were no crimes. I thought “If they don’t find anything on Trump will they be bold enough to create false evidence & truly frame him?”….Heck if you got higher-ups in the FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA & FISA COURT all ready to foment a coup, it could happen!

                  Considering Clinton’s campaign & the DNC created & paid for the Dossier & everyone knew it, It truly is one of the worst criminal episodes in the history of American politics!

            2. That people ignore this is annoying me to no end.

              I tell my lawyer “I want to do this”. He tells me “That would violate the law”. I do not do it.

              I haven’t ATTEMPTED to break any law. I said what I wanted to do, was told I could not, and then did not.

              This is how it is supposed to work.

      2. I responded lower to most of his critiques. His latest salvo was still devoid of factual analysis. It seems he raced to try to cover up his earlier platitudes.

      3. I’ve read the report. Amash is lying and/or misrepresenting what Mueller wrote in almost every instance:
        1. Trump asked the FBI director to stop investigating Michael Flynn, who had been his campaign adviser and national security adviser, and who had already committed a crime by lying to the FBI.
        Amash is actually quoting Comey’s memo, in which Trump is alleged to have told him Flynn had done nothing wrong, that the General was a good man and “I hope you can just let this go”.
        Amash is hoping lazy, partisan journalists won’t fact-check this statement.
        2. After AG Sessions recused himself from the Russian investigation on the advice of DoJ ethics lawyers, Trump directly asked Sessions to reverse his recusal so that he could retain control over the investigation and help the president.
        So what? Trump didn’t want Sessions to abandon his responsibility. “Helping the President” is what Amash and the DNC interpreted it as.
        Now that was probably Trumps actual intent, but Meuller doesn’t say that. Again, Amash is counting on people not to read the actual report.
        3. Trump directed the White House counsel, Don McGahn, to have Special Counsel Mueller removed on the basis of pretextual conflicts of interest that Trump’s advisers had already told him were “ridiculous” and could not justify removing the special counsel.
        Trump says this didn’t happen. Mueller mentions the accusation but doesn’t give it any real credence.
        Again Amash lies, and lazy Reason journalists regurgitate the story.

        1. Amash is hoping lazy, partisan journalists won’t fact-check this statement.

          Judging from Eric Boehm, that is probably a pretty good bet.

        2. 4. When that event was publicly reported, Trump asked that McGahn make a public statement and create a false internal record stating that Trump had not asked him to fire the special counsel, and suggested that McGahn would be fired if he did not comply.
          Again, this is Amash pretending that Mueller made this accusation rather than reporting that McGahn made the claim.
          5. Trump asked Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to tell AG Sessions to limit the special counsel’s investigation only to future election interference. Trump said Lewandowski should tell Sessions he was fired if he would not meet with him.
          The reference from the Mueller report: Lewandowski told Sessions Trump wanted him to communicate “Now a group of people want to subvert the Constitution of the United States. I am going to meet with the Special Prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and let the Special Prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections”
          And you know what? That was exactly what was happening. It wasn’t obstruction and Amash knows it.
          6. Trump used his pardon power to influence his associates, including Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, not to fully cooperate with the investigation.
          Trump hasn’t pardoned anyone.

      4. Interesting to me that the entire Mueller report is being treated as gospel by, well everyone. The accused has essentially been convicted by a federal prosecutor without bothering with an actual trial.

        1. Well,if you support due process, you’re not believing victims and are making them go through difficulties.

          Funny, Soave has discussed the problems of kangaroo courts on campuses…but Reason supports them in DC.

      5. 1. Bullshit. The only crime Flynn had committed was lying to the FBI. Which, as libertarians, shouldn’t be a crime in the first place. Especially when the LE repeatedly try to get you to meet without a lawyer present. (And that completely ignores the fact that there was nothing untoward about his talking to his Russian counterpart in the first place, as long as it did in fact happen during the transition as the FBI said it did.)
        2. We all saw how well the investigation stayed on track and how they totally didn’t lose focus of their initial charter of Trump/Russia collusion.
        3. Mueller, and most of his team, were Hillary supporters. Gee, I wonder why that could be a conflict of interest.
        4. At best this is completely unethical. At worst it’s criminal, but not “high crimes or treason” criminal.
        5. The special counsel’s investigation should have been limited to the original claim of collusion. Since a fifth grader could figure that out in a couple weeks, they had to extend it into every facet of all the associates lives. Kinda like when they go after a mob boss and get the underlings on parking tickets and unpaid taxes. (Which again, as libertarians, I thought we were against.)
        6. Not sure about this one. But his point about Manafort dealing with a Ukranian I thought happened well before he was working for the Trump campaign.

  3. “He’s turned down what are surely endless requests to appear on cable news” yet was the conversation of every Sunday news show. How naive has reason become?

    1. The derp is strong in this one. Talking about Amash on a Sunday news show does NOT mean Amash agreed to and then appeared on a Sunday news show.

      1. Just because he didn’t physically appear on the shows doesn’t mean that he wasn’t on the shows. Quit white-knighting for TreasonNN.

      2. I find the people who most often use the term derp have the least value responses. The trend continues here.

        1. I find that the people who most often accuse others of using specific terms have the least value responses.

          1. How cute, chipper seems upset.

            1. I am mocking you for my own amusement. If that means to you I am upset, well, then, you are wrong.

              1. You arent mocking anybody dear.

            2. It is his sockpuppet after all.

  4. “Helen_CallsDaily_5calls.org ❄️

    @Cruellaisdevine
    57m57 minutes ago
    More
    Replying to @justinamash
    I’m disappointed that you’ve bought into the Koch Libertarian ideology & I’m hopeful that your statements are not a Koch manipulation. However, I applaud you for standing by your oath of office, the Constitution, the #RuleOfLaw and putting country over political party. Thank you.”

    1. Oh, this is gold

  5. A shorter version of Boehm / Amash:

    The Salem witches obstructed justice by contesting their guilt!

    1. Certain of those women started kicking when thrown in the water. Kicking is pretty obviously an attempt to float, ergo, clearly witchcraft.

      Unless Trump holds perfectly still when thrown in the lake, you don’t need to wonder if he is owned by Putin. DUh!!

      1. Certain of those women started kicking when thrown in the water. Kicking is pretty obviously an attempt to float, ergo, clearly witchcraft.

        Unless Trump holds perfectly still when thrown in the lake, you don’t need to wonder if he is owned by Putin.

        This explanation is way too long and detailed for a political and rhetorical virtuoso like Amash.

    2. Whether or not you agree with the Puritanical witch hunters, their demeanor stands in stark contrast to how most of the accused witches have reacted to being burned at the stake

      1. Because they were hanged.

  6. Why not evaluate Trump’s conduct in light of the precedent set by Bill Clinton’s acquittal? This acquittal rebuts that idea that it’s automatically impeachable for a President (as opposed to, say, a federal judge) to lie to a court, to obstruct justice, and the like.

    And while Clinton’s lie was “about sex,” he was estopped from saying the sex was trivial, because he himself had signed the law (Molinari Amendment) which allowed accused persons in sexual-misconduct cases to be interrogated about unrelated sex acts.

    So before getting indignant about Trump acting like he’s above the plebes, consider the precedent the Senate set that a President can defy a law he was perfectly happy to impose on the plebes, exempting himself from obligations and penalties which he was ready to apply to everyone else.

    The ideal situation would be to apply the Clinton precedent, so that the Dems won’t be allowed to apply their famous double standards. Then the Senate could announce that the Clinton precedent won’t be applied in future situations, regardless of the party affiliation of the President.

    1. OK, here’s an idea – expunge the Clinton impeachment proceedings from the record, not so that Clinton can be retried, but so that the acquittal won’t be a precedent any longer.

      That would certainly blow a lot of minds, but if the expungement fails Amash could say, “oh, well, so long as I have to follow that precedent, never mind impeaching Trump.”

      (I know that Amash, a potential candidate against Trump, wouldn’t do that)

      1. There is no such thing as an “Impeachment precident”. One Congress is in no way bound by previous ones. There is no common law of Senate impeachment proceedings.

        1. pp. 873 ff. of Riddick’s Senate manual disagrees:

          https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-69.pdf

          At least as far as trial procedure is concerned.

          So maybe you could claim that impeachment precedents only apply to procedural, not substantive questions?

          Though I doubt it.

          1. You could claim anything you like. But since the Senate is the final arbiter, whatever they decided goes. IF the Senate said the 1998 Senate was wrong and decided a new case differently, that decision would carry the day. The Senate can do whatever it wants to.

            1. Same with the Supreme Court, but that doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as Supreme Court precedents.

              1. The two are not analagous. There are no lower courts that are bound by a Senate decision. And the Senate is not required to even address it. It can just ignore it. So it is not a precedent.

                1. The Supreme Court can ignore its own precedents too.

                  FWIW, the Legal Information Institute considers evidence of past impeachment as illustrative of the meaning of the impeachment clause.

                  https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachment

                  1. PS – The Supreme Court’s decisions in state versus state litigation are considered precedential, I believe, though lower courts can’t hear such cases hence the precedents can’t be invoked there.

                    1. PS. If the precidedent isn’t binding, it is meaningless. This is especially true with the Senate who unlike the courts are under no obligation to consider any previous actions much less follow them.

                    2. Ignoring a precedent at the very least sends the message “we admit we’re either wrong now or we were in the past when we pronounced on what the law was.”

                      Admitting a precedent was wrong, if it indeed is, is a good thing, but if the adjudicator isn’t sure one way or the other, going with the precedent is a good idea.

                      But of course the Supremes and the Senators can’t bind themselves.

          2. Impeachments are always political actions with a barely legalized veneer to make it somewhat respectable.

            1. The 2/3 rule is so that impeachment will (ideally) only work if there’s a broad consensus (not just in the opposition party) that high crimes and misdemeanors occurred.

              I suspect it would be fairly easy to get a Senate majority to say that the behavior of someone in the other party is impeachable. Winning over the fence-sitters is the key, and traditionally that’s required some kind of evidence.

    2. Why not evaluate Trump’s behavior in light of the fact that he was a real estate developer in NYC for all his life? “Inherently corrupt” is a pretty good description for the first Presidential candidate in history who had actually donated to his opponent’s campaign* and shrugged it off with the excuse that “that’s how business is done”. You don’t buy or sell so much as a single cigarette in NYC without permission from a whole long list of rent-seekers, back-scratchers, log-rollers, palm-greasers and “community activist” groups – or in any other major city in America with a Democratic machine for that matter. And everybody knows it. Trump has been steeped and marinated in “inherently corrupt” all his life but like asking a fish about water he has no idea that what’s taken for granted in NYC is some pretty fucked-up shit for the 95% of the world’s population that doesn’t live in NYC, Chicago, San Francisco or Zimbabwe.

      *I have no idea whether or not this is true, but in a post-truth world I have the right to assert opinions as alternative facts the same as anybody else.

      1. You probably believe Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer too, don’t you?

        Well, you’d be right – Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer.

        1. Quite a feet since he wasn’t even born at the time of the killings.

          Which shows just what a diabolical genius he is.

          1. “Feat”, you illiterate moron.

            1. Hey look you post kiddie porn and grammar help. The grammar help at least won’t get you banned again.

            2. Actually, you kidding raping faggot, that was a product of autocorrect substituting the wrong homonym. So don’t go thinking you have anywhere near my intellect, as you do not. Your tiny child raping mind is minuscule relative to my own healthy mind.

              You should probably just kill yourself, so you don’t victimize any more children or spread socialism.

      2. You don’t buy or sell so much as a single cigarette in NYC

        YOU BETTER NOT.

        This message brought to you by NYPD chiropracty.

        1. Mr. Garner learned that the hard way.

  7. It seems Amash has finally laid out some specifics, but again has thrown out incendiary remarks on the social media platform least suited to thoughtful, in depth explanations and cast aspersions on the motives of his closest colleagues who may disagree with his conclusions. That is brave integrity, somehow.

    1. On this I can certainly agree. Why do people put this crap on Twitter of all places? I guess this is the world we live in.

      It is a direct link from his own words to the masses. Maybe he (along with Trump who obviously uses Twitter all the time) prefer it as a medium compared to the actual news media who would just contort and paraphrase their words out of context? Still doesn’t mean that I like reading stuff like this on Twitter.

    2. Brave integrity? You misspelled “Trumpian”. Amash is displaying Trumpian behavior.

    3. When Trump uses Twitter, it is heroic and he is bypassing the evil media. When Amash uses Twitter, he is stooping to using a superficial social media platform not conductive to deep conversation.

      1. I’m still waiting for your first intelligent response. On pins and needles here.

      2. Anyone using twitter is an idiot. It’s facebook for the retarded narcissists.

  8. Specifically, Amash points to Trump’s request to the FBI director that the bureau stop investigating Michael Flynn, Trump’s order that then–White House Counsel Don McGahn have Mueller removed from the investigation (a demand McGahn ignored), and Trump’s subsequent decision to tell McGahn to lie about the incident in public records.

    Trump had every right to tell them to leave Flynn alone. The FBI works for the President. To say that Trump had no right to do that and that doing so was criminal is to make the FBI completely above accountablility to elected officials and the public. If they are not accountable to the President, who are they accountable to? Amash appearently believes in a national secret police. How Libertarian of him.

    Where is the evidence that Trump ever told anyone to lie? That is a completely unsupported assertion of Amash’s part.

    We are again left with a bunch of vagaries and bullshit. Amash and reason continues to not give a single damn about what seems to be a CIA and FBI attempt to overturn an election. Reason and Amash love the police state as long as it is used to ensure they continue to have access to cheap shit from China.

    1. Reason has completely ignored the Texas vs Perry case where the liberal Austin D.A.S atre.pted to indict Perry for using his state constitutional authority.

      If trump wanted to obstruct, he could have ended the probe or prosecution at any time, full stop. He is the lead of the executive. You cant obstruct what is your defined constitutional power.

      If trumpied under oath in a court setting, then yes he could have been held liable to obstruction.

      Let us also not forget that this wasnt even a criminal investigation, which is what obstruction requires. This was a counter intelligence investigation. For all intents and purposes trump could have shut down Mueller as being appointed in violation of the SP statute since it does not apply to counter intelligence investigations.

      Amash just seems like he is a shitty constitutionalist all around.

      1. Whoever gave Amash his law degree should demand it back. A President exercising his lawful power of authority and oversight over the FBI is not obstruction. And Amash knows it. Boehm is 12 years old and literally knows nothing. So, I can forgive his ignorance. I can’t do the same for Amash. What a lying piece of shit he has turned out to be.

        1. Amash’s own words:
          “The president has authority to fire federal officials, direct his subordinates, and grant pardons, but he cannot do so for corrupt purposes; otherwise, he would always be allowed to shut down any investigation into himself or his associates, which would put him above the law.”

          Seems pretty reasonable to me.

          1. Actually, it doesn’t even make sense. Firing federal officials, directing subordinates, and granting pardons would not, in fact, allow him to “shut down any investigation.”

            1. Nor did he do that at any point. This is all bullshit.

              They just hate him. Period.

              1. I think there is at least evidence that he directed some of his employees. To do what, no one is sure. The other two never happened at all, so referencing them as reasons for impeachment seems nonsensical.

                1. I look at it this way. Since Obama committed a large number of wide ranging crimes against the Republic and humanity in general, and nothin ever happened, Trump shouldn’t be bothered with all this vague nonsense.

                  1. You’re not wrong.

                  2. BENGHAZI!!!!!!

                    1. Hey look, you took time off from creating and posting kiddie porn Screech.

                      Why are you still disrespecting reason’s ban, and lying abut paying your bet?

                    2. Yeah kiddie raper, Benghazi. Funny how you just take Obama and Hillary’s word for everything even though it’s a proven fact the cunt lied repeatedly. Proven by her own correspondence no less.

                      But then, a child rapist such as yourself has no integrity to begin with, right?

            2. Let’s think of this in terms of the hypothetical, so as to avoid any emotion about Trump, Amash, or this specific investigation…

              Do you think a President should have the power to fire those conducting an investigation into their own criminal actions? Amash is saying that he doesn’t, otherwise the sitting President would by definition never be the subject of any investigation because he would be allowed to simply shut it down.

              1. should have read…

                Do you think a President should have the power to fire those conducting an investigation into his/her own criminal actions

                1. Yes he should. All of them serve at the pleasure of the President. Now, that doesn’t mean Congress can’t investigate that wrong doing or that the President can’t be held accountable for it. But, the President firing the head of the FBI is not and never could be obstruction. If it is, then, the FBI is effectively unaccountable to the President because any fired head could claim he was fired for investigating something the President didn’t want investigated.

              2. No, I don’t believe I’ll be doing anything hypothetical.

                Trump WAS NOT able to shut down THIS Investigation. Full stop.

                Amash is flatly wrong.

                1. He was able.
                  He did not.

                  1. Well he thought about it. Then he asked questions too, about his options. Clearly obstruction

              3. “Do you think a President should have the power to fire those conducting an investigation into their own criminal actions?”

                Yes. Firing people stops nothing.

              4. Jesus fucking christ leo. The special council was investigating a counter intelligence issue, not a criminal issue. The FBI and Mueller have both stated so you’re basing your argument on a false predicate.

              5. The investigation was initiated by the executive.
                Yes, the executive can start or stop, fire or hire at any time.

          2. That is because you don’t know what he is talking about. The President is not bound by any purpose in the use of his oversight. Trump either has the power to shut down the investigation or he doens’t. If he does, then it doesn’t matter the purposes of him doing it. If he does not, then the FBI is a unaccountable national police force.

            Beyond that, Amash has no proof Trump did any of that. He asked the FBI to stop going after Flynn. He never ordered them to do anything. The Muehler report admits his administration was entirely cooperative including waiving privilige and giving information where doing so was not required.

            Is there anyting Amash says that you don’t believe?

            1. Trump either has the power to shut down the investigation or he doens’t. If he does, then it doesn’t matter the purposes of him doing it. If he does not, then the FBI is a unaccountable national police force.

              If the President were indeed guilty of a federal crime then there would be no way to investigate if the President had absolute power to continually fire the investigators. Amash is saying this would put the President above the law, which is correct.

              Is there anyting Amash says that you don’t believe?
              I don’t believe Trump should be impeached. I also don’t like his stance on immigration or abortion.

              1. “there would be no way to investigate if the President had absolute power to continually fire the investigators. ”

                That would be actual grounds for impeachment.

                See how this is supposed to work?

                1. I’ve basically agreed with what you’re saying in my post above. Trump shouldn’t be impeached because he wasn’t able to actually obstruct justice.

                  1. Cool so you and Amash were wrong. Glad we could agree there.

                    1. LOL. Oh Tulpa, never change.

                    2. I can’t say the same for you, sorry. Your being wrong here is one place your change could start.

              2. If the President were indeed guilty of a federal crime then there would be no way to investigate if the President had absolute power to continually fire the investigators. Amash is saying this would put the President above the law, which is correct.

                Yes there would, Congress could investigate it. And that doesn’t make the President above the law. It just means Congress holds him to the law not the exectutive. You seem to view the FBI and DOJ as these special powers above the rest of the government. They are not. They are employees of the President who is by extension employees of the people. Their boss is the President. They don’t hold their boss accountable. He holds them accountable. It is Congress, who are the respresentatives of the people who hold the President accountable.

              3. “Amash is saying this would put the President above the law, which is correct.”

                Did Trump actually do that? Then why are we talking about impeaching him over a hypothetical? Or did you forget this was Amash making his impeachment case?

                “Well he could… ” doesn’t cut it.

                1. Trump could have raped Pelosi at the State of the Union speech. Impeach him!

                  (How will you get that image out of your mind?!!!)

              4. You keep saying this was a federal criminal investigation… how can I take you seriously when you dont even understand the basic premise of the SP mandate? What crime do you actually believe this was about?

                1. Let’s just not take him seriously. It makes things simpler.

            2. the FBI is a unaccountable national police force.

              Just the way Hoover wanted it. He must be proud it is still running as planned.

          3. What corrupt purposes did Mueller present? Mueller exonerated trump of the crime of collusion having found no evidence of it. Can proclaiming your innocence be corrupt?

          4. Except you’d have to prove “corrupt purposes”. Good luck with that.

  9. It should also be pointed out that Flynn’s case still isn’t over and it is far from clear his guilty plea will stand. Even if it does, it was a plea for “lying” to the FBI over a perfectly legal meeting that was approved by the Obama administration and a plea that was basically extorted out of Flynn by DOJ threatening to bankrupt Flynn and his family.

    Then there is the case of the Maria Butina, the infamous Russian “spy” that Boehm’s media buddies helped to slander as a Russian spy. It is an unbeleivable and shocking case of abuse of power. But reason and Boehm couldn’t give a fuck less about this or the Flynn case because doing so might require a monicum of integrity and moral courage.

    http://spectator.us/maria-butina-crime-russian/

    1. It should also be pointed out that Flynn’s case still isn’t over and it is far from clear his guilty plea will stand

      It’s a bit amusing that it never occurred to anyone that Flynn deliberately pled guilty, and then turned right around and contested the guilty plea. Supposedly, a couple months ago, his team was planning to provide evidence that the case brought against him was based on the “fruit of the poisonous tree”, in that the FISA warrants issued against him were based on false evidence, i.e., the Steele dossier.

      What’s even more interesting is that Mueller gave no objection to this whatsoever when Flynn’s team indicated that they were going to introduce new evidence. We haven’t heard shit about this case for weeks, and I have a feeling that’s because if it gets out that these process indictments were based on a fake intel report cooked up from one of Sydney Blumenthal’s drug-induced hallucinations, all hell’s going to break loose.

      1. It is very obvious that is what happened.

    2. Charging Flynn was bullshit to begin with. He was never told of any investigation, believing himself to be in a trip all meeting with his FBI counterparts. Which was a routine part of his job.

      How can he be lying with intent to obstruct justice in an investigation if he isn’t even aware the investigation exists?

  10. I’m mostly confused by why Amash is tweeting all this now. Every President has committed impeachable offenses, most much worse than this current kerfuffle. And again, his obstruction was only for a crime that did not exist, which most people seem to be forgetting.

    Has Amash done this before, like for Obama? Is he only responding to questions about impeachment, or is this spontaneous and out of the blue? If responding to questions, surely similar questions must have arisen about Obama.

    Just a puzzle to me.

    1. If inherent corruption was an impeachable offense, then we might as well get some autist in a wheelchair to run the country.

      Obama did a lot of shady shit, and even then I didn’t think he did anything that deserved actual impeachment. I would have been fine with his cronies getting thrown in jail, but then Obama’s also a uniparty member, and the people associated with those folks don’t suffer the consequences of their actions short of a guillotine.

      1. You don’t think executing two American citizens with his direct order was impeachable?

        Is there anything you think is grounds for impeachment since murder is not?

        1. I feel about as sorry for those two as I do for Americans that joined ISIS.

          1. Still… not a great precedent

            1. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

      2. Obama’s crimes are without number, and his villainy without end. We may see WW3 in the foreseeable future because of his actions regarding Iran.

        Goddamn Obama. and goddamn the democrats.

  11. Flynn was entrapped by rogue FBI actors. There was zero genuine reason for them to be investigating Flynn.

    Why is Amash pretending swamp dweller operations are real FBI investigations?

    Oh yeah, it’s because he wants attention.

    1. Amash has proven beyond reasonable doubt that he is inherently corrupt

  12. Amash Doubles Down: ‘Some of the President’s Actions Were Inherently Corrupt’

    Which ones? Lay out your argument.

    1. He did. Read the Tweets.

      You’re free to argue the merits of his reasoning, but the excuse that he hasn’t articulated his position is no longer valid.

      1. Would you defend those merits or is that a hill that even you won’t die on?

        1. I’ve laid out my interpretation of the whole thing below.

          1. With no facts or specific accusations. Your post is literally “I agree Orange Man Bad”

          2. And your interpretation of the whole thing is false based on original premise. It wasnt a criminal investigation.

      2. I read the tweets Leo. They were bullshit misquotes and in a few cases outright lies. I’ve broken them down up above.

  13. Reason is really letting itself get played like this?

    1. Yes it is. Orange man Bad. That is all reason cares about these days.

      1. But orange man is bad! Do you have eyes?

        1. But Oreo man was good? Do you have a brain?

      2. That, and advancing the progressive agenda under the guise of “libertarianism”

        1. What is the alternative agenda? I mean other than shitting on as many brown people as possible?

          1. Historicly low levels of African American and Hispanic unemployment, yep shitting on brown people. God you are tiresome. So you think before you post simplistic talking points?

            1. That’s the most embarrassingly ironic comment of the day.

              Sure, they’re literally locking up Latino families by the thousands and traumatizing children for no good reason, threatening war with Iran, and even doing things as petty like taking Harriet Tubman off the $20, but through absolutely no policy action on the part of Republicans or Trump, the job market is a little better than it used to be.

              1. Oh Tony, you raving faggot, you are completely divorced from reality. Trump is fixing all the shit your master Obama fucked up over the eight years of his despotic rule. You would rather see America destroyed than see Trump’s succeed, and it kills you inside that his IS succeeding.

                Let’s just hope it kills you entirely. As it is best that yo die. Failing that, go drink your fucking Drano.

          2. “shitting on as many brown people as possible?”

            How so?
            By importing as many people to compete with them for jobs, services, and other resources while simultaneously outsourcing as much as possible?

            1. Tony has to cry ‘racism’. He has no other straws left which to grasp.

          3. Man, I wish I could find all those times you called out Obama for shitting on brown people.

            Oh wait, they were brown people overseas, so they don’t matter to you cause you can’t collect them like pokemon.

    2. The only people “getting played” are those who fail to realize Drumpf is a Russian intelligence asset who colluded and obstructed.

    3. somebody @r thinks Justin is cute or something

  14. I’m glad that Amash has at least put some meat behind his weekend tweets. The timing is strange, but now we at least know his rationale.

    While I agree that the offenses he highlights are likely impeachable, and by that I mean the meet the low bar of indicting, but as the saying goes the grand jury (the House in this case) can indict a ham sandwich. I’m not sure these would meet the criteria of being significantly above and beyond what other Presidents have done in the past in light of investigations into their conduct. Impeachment is a political loser, and shouldn’t be pursued.

    Trump’s actions were reckless to say the least. If he was innocent (as we now know he was) then why do anything that might be even potentially construed as obstruction? It’s absurd. Either he has a horrible legal team, his ego is too big to just let this play out on his own, he doesn’t pay attention to history, or all of the above. Time and time again the subjects of investigations fall into the obstruction or perjury trap, for no apparent good reason.

    1. “While I agree that the offenses he highlights are likely impeachable,”

      Name them. Don’t direct me to his tweets to attempt to dis ern which you agree with, name the specific offenses and cite your evidence.

      I think you think we can’t see what you’re doing.

      1. To me, this is an abuse of power that I think could warrant impeachment:
        “4. When that event was publicly reported, Trump asked that McGahn make a public statement and create a false internal record stating that Trump had not asked him to fire the special counsel, and suggested that McGahn would be fired if he did not comply.”

        But as I’ve said, it doesn’t likely rise to the level of abuses of power that other Presidents have not been impeached for. Therefore, impeachment would be wrong in this case. Impeachment shouldn’t be taken up for light and transient reasons.

        1. I agree with everything in your post.

        2. So it looks like your #4 didn’t actually happen either.

        3. Mueller mentions the accusation in his report, but doesn’t give it credence one way or another.
          Amash knows this, but he misrepresents the statement as Mueller’s anyway.

        4. McGahn ASSERTS. He said he said.

    2. Trump’s actions were reckless to say the least. If he was innocent (as we now know he was) then why do anything that might be even potentially construed as obstruction?

      That is assuming the argument. Who says that Amash is correct to interpret this as “obstruction”? That is the entire point isn’t it? Your argument boils down to Trump should not have done anything because some opportunistic douche bag like Amash might one day claim it was obstruction.

      Why are these things obstruction? Telling the FBI to leave Flynn, a guy who was being unfarily prosecuted alone is the right thing to do. I don’t see a single thing that Trump did that wasn’t the right thing to do much less criminal or obstruction.

      The horrible precident is the one Amash wants to set that says any efforts to control the FBI and DOJ by a President can be considered obstruction by his enemies. If President’s follow your advice and are not “reckless”, then no President should ever reign in or even question any actions of the FBI and DOJ. That is a pretty terrifying precident “Libertarian” Amash wants to set.

      1. Excellent point. The writers at Reason are too stupid and too infected with TDS to see the terrible consequences of their weak arguments. I can’t tell if Amash is that stupid or just an asshole looking for attention. I’m betting this is his last term and rather than seek honest employment, he’s looking to become a “libertarian leader”. It’s a good example of why I know longer identify as libertarian.

    3. Why didnt trump help the prosecution find ways to lay put perjury traps? Your argument is no better than ignoring the 4th amendment and asking someone under police investigation why they object to the search of they are innocent.

    4. Likewise leo, you are ignoring the vast number of leaks of sensitive materials from Mueller and the FBI at the time. Why would someone hesitate in handing over documents in that environment….

    5. Trump’s actions were reckless to say the least. If he was innocent (as we now know he was) then why do anything that might be even potentially construed as obstruction?

      Comey was incompetent and hostile, and it was legitimate to fire him.

      The fact that Schiff, Pelosi, Sandler and others love their conspiracy theories shouldn’t interfere with normal government operations.

      1. The dems wanted Comey fired because they though he helped sink the election for Hillary. But naturally the dems cry foul when the repubs steal their thunder.

        1. The FBI agents who worked the Hillary Clinton case were incensed that Comey Da Clown let her off without recommending the DOJ bring charges, so to save face he brought it back up with Huma Abedin’s laptop crap right before the election…I believe he thought this would make him look good & Da Witch would probably win anyway….But, remember that Abedin had over 100,000 State Dept. e-mails on her personal laptop, though she las worked there months ago & her pervert hubby was looking at them, but again Comey Da Clown just said “never mind….nothing to see here!”

    6. If he was innocent (as we now know he was) then why do anything that might be even potentially construed as obstruction?

      See here’s the thing you’re not getting.

      WE may know it now, but HE knew it then. So for him wanting this witch hunt over wasn’t EVER obstruction–it was trying to get this waste of taxpayer money over with as quickly as possible.

      Because he KNEW there was nothing to find.

  15. Amash joins Jeff Flake and Bill Kristol on the short list of respectable conservatives and Republicans. Regrettably, most of the party has sold out to Russia.

    Every patriotic American needs to sign the MoveOn impeachment petition.

    #TrumpRussia
    #ItsMuellerTime
    #Impeach
    #Resist

    1. You forgot:

      #ItsHerTurn

  16. “The reactions from the president and his supporters have been instructive.”

    Instructive, or repetitlve? Shrieking like a tribe of agitated chimpanzees every time a little slight is muttered is their modus operandii.

    1. Days the dunce yelling impeach and Russia for 2.5 years.

      1. Yeah, you never heard that from me.

        1. Sure. You just go around insulting people who thought the premise of the special investigation was wrong for lulz.

          1. I’d respond to you but I burned through all of my banana jokes yesterday.

            1. slip on it, you’ll think of something new tomorrow.

  17. It’s a fact that Trump partied at Studio 54.

    David Bowie, Sly Stallone, Cher and even Donald Trump couldn’t get enough of nightclub Studio 54

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhvYgmvn3Zw

    It’s also a fact that there were many perversions at Studio 54.

    Now Trump can claim that he didn’t sniff cocaine or having sex on the dance floor, but did he report these crimes?

    If not, he could be impeached for a coverup.

    1. I can get being there for all that decadence.

      Showing up and just doing nothing is creepy.

      Like showing up at the nudie beach fully dressed.

      1. >>>I can get being there for all that decadence.

        can you imagine? on the list if i ever get my hands on a time machine

  18. “articles by attrition” won’t make Justin more correct

  19. “Mueller’s report describes a consistent effort by the president to use his office to obstruct or otherwise corruptly impede the Russian election interference investigation because it put his interests at risk,”

    Gleen Greenwald thus spake differently.

    No Americans were charged or even accused of being controlled by or working at the behest of the Russian government. None of the key White House aides at the center of the controversy who testified for hours and hours – including Donald Trump, Jr. or Jared Kushner – were charged with any crimes of any kind, not even perjury, obstruction of justice or lying to Congress.

    These facts are fatal to the conspiracy theorists who have drowned U.S. discourse for almost three years with a dangerous and distracting fixation on a fictitious espionage thriller involved unhinged claims of sexual and financial blackmail, nefarious infiltration of the U.S. Government by familiar foreign villains, and election cheating that empowered an illegitimate President.

    1. Greenwald is just a far right racist white supremacist. Didn’t you know that?

      1. And a homophobe… and so is his husband.

    2. So going back to the question on the technical articles of impeachment, yes, Donald Trump can be impeached by congress for anything congress deems unseemly.

      And to give my original example: people complain about Donald Trump recklessly tweeting from his personal account. That is an impeachable offense. If Congress wants to impeach on that, go to it, spinach chin. That is arguably conduct unbecoming of the office.

      But quit trying to say there was a statutory or criminal breach here in regards to the Mueller report because those claims are dubious.

  20. Amash Doubles Down: ‘Some of the President’s Actions Were Inherently Corrupt’

    If you want a police state badly enough (and you clearly do, Mr. Amash), you can find justifications for calling anybody’s actions “inherently corrupt”.

    F-ck off slaver.

  21. Amash is pissing on the american people with these tweets.

    1. That should make Trump excited.

      1. I thought it was Hillary and the Russians.

      2. Could’ve done better, but that actually made me chuckle a little

  22. How do you make a Reason staffer orgasm? Whisper, amash in their ear.

    1. To be fair, I have about as much evidence for impeachment as he does.

      1. For those of us old enough to remember Clinton, he can impeach Trump because he doesn’t like his Orange Hair. But if he does, he should just say that, instead of concocting an obstruction charge out of the Mueller report.

        1. This. If you have the votes, you can impeach. Nobody can stop you even if you’re doing it for utterly insane or purely partisan reasons.

          1. Impeachment is by definition a political process. If the President is guilty of actual crimes, he can be indicted and thrown into prison by the laws the rest of the plebs are subject to.

            And for the record, I have no problem with it being a political process.

    2. tulpa entertains. justin is zzzz

  23. I was surfing on the Web late one night
    When my eyes beheld an eerie sight,
    For a Congressblob’s ego began to rise
    And suddenly, to my surprise,

    He did the Amash!
    He did the monster Amash!
    The monster Amash!
    It was a Reason smash!
    He did the Amash!
    It caught on in a flash!
    He did the Amash!
    He did the monster Amash!

  24. This ought to be fun:

    A judge has ruled to unseal records in ‘Empire’ actor Jussie Smollett’s case.

    A Chicago police spokesman tells @ABC7Chicago some 600 pages of the Jussie Smollett investigative file will be uploaded for the media likely by Tuesday.

  25. Amash is making the Trump-worshiping conservative trash work extra hard defending him lately.

    GIT AMASH BEFORE HE EXCAPES THE GOP PLANTATION!

      1. No. We survived the Bushpigs and we’ll survive the Orange Shitgibbon too. The tariffs will set off a harsh recession in 2020 and he will be gone anyway.

        1. And you survived being banned for child pornography. Well, you didn’t you got banned, but you couldn’t accept being asked to leave.

          1. Your parents beat the shit out of you regularly, didn’t they? And you totally deserved it, didn’t you?

            1. This is not an appropriate place for your sexual fantasies, Tony.
              This isn’t the roundup

            2. It’s not like what he said was inaccurate.

            3. Tony likes ’em young too. Don’t you chickenhawk?

              1. Just because your victims are in pieces under your floorboard doesn’t mean you don’t like them.

        2. If you are following along the tariffs are creating an American Manufacturing renaissance. It is China that will be in recession/collapsing.

          They are not self sufficient in food or oil.

          America produces lots of food and oil.

          1. Yes, the Chinese economy is in big trouble. Trump picked a very good time to go after them – the US economy is the strongest it’s been in decades and China is stumbling. The only question is whether he can get them to cave in before the election season next year since it will hurt him in the Midwest.

  26. Only Reason could find a way to attack a duly elected president, and the least interventionist inclined president we’ve had in a century, for trying to thwart a CIA/FBI/NSA coup d’état.

    I do wonder if this president advocated for open borders if the Reason writers they would still think that trying to stop a politically motivated attempt to disqualify a presidential election (these people actually discussed trying to remove him via the 25th amendment) amounted to the corrupt intent element necessary to sustain the obstruction of justice charge.

    moreover the federal definition of obstruction of justice offers protection for investigations only for the “due administration of justice.”

    “corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”

    But due means just; proper; regular; lawful; sufficient; reasonable, etc. in no way were the investigations regular, reasonable, lawful, or sufficient.

    they were animated solely for political reasons, based on assertions that were disproven, assertions that even if true were not criminal in nature. this entire saga began when carter page relayed to the australian ambassador that someone told him, most likely a mi5/cia cutout, that the russians had hillary’s emails and then had the deepstate unleash it’s full furry on him. that’s not a crime.

    1. The full furry went out of style in the late 80s.

    2. So is being “least interventionist” expressed by threatening to attack Iran for [insert explanation]? Or is it militarizing the border because [insert explanation]?

      1. Yes.
        It’s not the highest bar.
        But feel free to name a lesser “foreign interventionist” from FDR through Obama

      2. threatening to attack iran if they try to shutdown the straight of hormuz, is that really interventionist? there isn’t much in the region that can actually be considered a vital u.s. interest but if one exists at all it surely is keeping open the international waterway that transports 20% of the worlds oil supply.

        he’s getting out of Syria and Afghanistan, and hasn’t started or will start any new wars or proxy wars like obama, bush2, clinton, bush1, reagan, carter, nixon, lbj, jfk, ike, fdr, did. you have to go back to hoover to find a president as ideologically predisposed to avoid war. even carter started the proxy war in Afghanistan, and look at how that turned out, we still have troops dying there.

        1. So he did hire John Bolton because he wanted to flick his mustache.

          Or is he a non-interventionist idiot?

          Trump has been intervening plenty. You just don’t see it much on the news. He promised to kill more civilians, and he delivered. You just don’t care to learn about it.

          1. you aren’t intellectually honest, and you aren’t very intelligent. it’s not worth my time to debate you.

            1. But I know how many civilians Trump has killed vs. Obama, do you?

          2. Who has been less interventionist:
            Obama
            Bush II
            Clinton
            Bush I
            Reagan
            Carter
            Ford (hmm… maybe, but kinda odd circumstance)
            Nixon
            Johnson
            Kennedy
            Eisenhower
            Truman
            F. Roosevelt

            I’ll give you Ford.
            Pick another.

            1. Obama. Clinton. Carter. Ford.

              Vietnam was kind of a bitch, huh? Which seeping barnacles stretched that one out?

              1. Not even sure what you are saying here. Obama deployed more troops (as a percentage of the standing military) to more conflicts then his predecessor. Ford took office in 1974, the last US troops left Vietnam in 1973. Nixon ran on leaving Vietnam with dignity, which he somewhat accomplished.
                Carter is on par with Ford, so I’ll give you that one (but it could be argued that Carter was not so much non-interventionist as he was a Chamberlain like character). Obama is pretty funny that you even attempted to list him. Syria, Libya, Yemen (though Trump gets blamed for this) etc.

  27. Well then, if we go by the “John standard” for the FBI, that the FBI basically is the President’s personal police and investigation bureau to do whatever the boss says, then looking back at how the Obama FBI handled the Clinton email case, it doesn’t seem so outrageous now, does it? After all, Obama’s FBI was presumably just following orders from their boss. And if their boss said to “take it easy on Hillary”, then nothing corrupt occurred, right? Because the boss trying to influence the outcome of an FBI investigation has no more significance than any boss telling his employees what to do. No more no less. Isn’t that right John?

    Whatever happened to the idea that the president, and the executive branch generally, are supposed to be nothing more than faithful stewards executing the laws and using the authority granted to it by Congress? That the president’s real job here, at least as far as the bureaucracy is concerned, is just to be essentially the chief administrator of the institutional structure that Congress created?

    Who is really in charge of the bureaucracy here? If Congress creates laws which criminalize behavior such as ‘obstruction of justice’, and if Congress declares that these laws apply to *everyone*, including themselves and including members of the executive branch, and if Congress grants money to the FBI for the purposes of investigating these crimes (among others), then why should the president be involved AT ALL?

    1. If we truly want the Legislative branch to be the true center of power in the government, and not the Executive or the Judiciary, then perhaps we should act like it. We shouldn’t treat the president like he is empowered to just take Congress’ money and Congress’ authority, to ignore Congress and just do whatever the hell he wants, and put the burden on Congress to clean up the mess created by the president. WE should demand that the president stop acting like an emperor and start treating the office as something other than an imperial throne. That starts with treating the executive branch as *executing* the will of the legislature, not trying to thwart or subvert it.

      1. That starts with restoring non-delegation doctrine, so that the legislature can’t just dump all the heavy lifting on the executive branch, while reserving a right to stick it’s nose in when it feels like it. To have authority in the real world, you have to be exercising it, not delegating 99.99% of it.

      2. “If we truly want the Legislative branch to be the true center of power in the government”

        Why the fuck would anyone want one of the three co-equal branches to have primacy you gibbering retard? God you are just irredeemable in your stupidity.

        1. Oh, that’s right! I forgot! Rule by executive decree is only bad when it’s the black man doing it!

          1. Actually it is worst when a Communist does it.

            Frank Marshall Davis was ∅s mentor growing up. His grandparents were commies. His mother….

            1. typical chica blanca

          2. Pedo Jeffy, no one wants to hear your retarded bullshit. You sick kiddie raper loving piece of shit.

        2. Well, the founding fathers did. Or maybe you didn’t notice that Congress can remove a President or judge, but neither can remove a Congressman? That Congress can override the opposition of a President to pass a law? That Congress, but not Presidents or judges, has constitutionally explicit immunities?

          They didn’t want the legislature to be all-powerful, but they certainly wanted it to be the most powerful branch of government.

          1. And the courts can rule anything that Congress does is unconstitutional. And the only power Congress has over the military and other executive offices is the power of the purse, but no command authority. And the executive branch can arrest any sitting congressmen (or woman) for criminal behavior (without impeachment, except for civil arrests while Congress is in session) and the courts can try them. So no, not the most powerful.

            1. “And the courts can rule anything that Congress does is unconstitutional.” And be impeached for it.

              “And the only power Congress has over the military and other executive offices is the power of the purse, but no command authority.” Not really true. Article 1, Section 8:

              “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

              To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

              To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

              To which I might add, the power to declare war.

              1. But still no command authority. They can raise an army but the president is in charge of it after it is raised. Yes they can impeach a a justice, though that was made intentionally very difficult. This wasn’t to give the legislature more power this was to create a check on the courts to keep them from becoming to all powerful.

                All the things you listed under the powers of Congress over the military are financial (even calling forth the militia because it is transferring funding authority from the states to the federal government). Once forced are raised, once war is declared, once the militia called up, the actual command of these forces falls to the executive branch.

      3. Do you understand the Constitution at all? Is any branch more or less equal than the other branches? Do you understand separation of powers? Based upon your post it is obvious you don’t.

    2. “Well then, if we go by the “John standard” for the FBI, that the FBI basically is ”

      Is it possible for you to post without doing this? This pathetic, stupid thing you do where you intentionally misrepresent your opponents position because you lack the intellectual quality to debate their actual position?

      Everyone sees it. It says a lot about the strength of your positions that you have to do it.

      1. Is it possible for you to breathe without being a narcissistic shithead?

      2. And just to note, this is the structure of Tulpa’s “argument”:

        1. Ignore 99% of what I write (probably because he agrees with it, but he can’t be seen agreeing with me on anything)
        2. Focus on a tiny minutiae where he misrepresents what I write, complete with gratuitous insults
        3. Tries to gaslight everyone by claiming “everyone sees” that I’m somehow wrong.

        That’s also the Jesse playbook, the Shithead playbook, and a whole host of other so-called “edgy” right-wing troll jobs around here.

        1. Christ, you’re a bigger whiner than your lefty journo buddies.

          1. Gotta circle the wagons against your supposed tribal allies even if they are pieces of shit, amirite. Next thing you know you’ll be sticking up for Shithead when he starts advocating for murdering Democrats again, or for vek when he starts advocating for shooting Mexicans at the border.

            Tulpa doesn’t give a shit about the constitution or separation of powers or Trump or Obama or any of the rest. He only posts here to get a rise out of people. Tulpa is the walking embodiment of the argument for banning hate speech.

            1. Gotta circle the wagons against your supposed tribal allies even if they are pieces of shit, amirite

              You would know, Mr. Immigrant Pedophile Defender.

            2. Tulpa is the walking embodiment of the argument for banning hate speech.

              Which is a great counter-argument for why leftists should be resisted at every turn, for every reason.

          2. Not only is Jeffy a huge whiner, he’s also dull witted, and believes bringing child rapist foreigners hear is good, because open borders is awesome.

            And Pedo Jeffy just won’t go away.

    3. John doesn’t have any actual beliefs beyond the one about how Republicans should have all the power. Not that I’m telling you something you don’t know.

      1. Lack of self awareness? Because I think this applies even more so to you, just in the opposite direction. I have never seen you have any true beliefs except that progressives are universally perfect and should have all the power.

        1. I don’t think Democrats are perfect, I just think Republicans are a psychopathic death cult that doesn’t believe in reality. And I happen to be right. Democrats, as it happens, are the only alternative.

          1. The funny thing is, that’s exactly what an actual member of a psychopathic death cult that doesn’t believe in reality would think. Sane people tend to be less certain of their opponents’ cosmic evil.

            1. I might forgive their ridiculously nonempirical horseshit about how economies work if they just believed climate change was real.

              But they’re literally the only organization on planet earth that doesn’t. Even including Exxon. It’s a deal-breaker, and it’s evil because it’s about the survival of our species.

          2. Notice I didn’t say Republican or Democrat. I used the word progressive. You chose to break it down by party, demonstrating the exact tribalism I was referring to. Thank you for proving my point.

            1. There is no such thing as the progressive party, so they can’t have any power in this country.

    4. The big difference of course is that Hillary definitely broke the law in her mishandling of secret documents. No doubt. So the FBI investigation, such as it was, was based on a real, proven crime. It was a CRIMINAL investigation not a national security investigation.

      1. So? According to John’s apparent standard above, the FBI works for the President, and if the President says “I don’t really care if Hillary broke the law, why don’t you lay off of her”, then there is nothing wrong or corrupt or anything about it. It’s not obstruction of justice, it’s not a crime, it’s just the boss being the boss. Right?

        1. if the President says “I don’t really care if Hillary broke the law, why don’t you lay off of her”, then there is nothing wrong or corrupt or anything about it. It’s not obstruction of justice, it’s not a crime, it’s just the boss being the boss. Right?

          Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn’t that exactly what happened?

          Comey trotted out a list of crimes Hillary committed and then said it was okay because no one would prosecute her.

  28. Of course he’s doubling down. He’s burned his bridges, he has two primary challengers already, and is almost certain to lose his seat at the next election.

    What’s left at this point except doubling down, so that he can at least hope to leech off TDS sufferers after he’s kicked out of office?

    1. Don;t know about Mich. but around here the more challengers an incumbent has in the primary, the more likely it is he will win.
      {All those pissed at him split their votes among the challengers.}

  29. Is he jealous of all of the attention AOC is getting?

  30. A single Republican points out the obvious that Trump is extremely, extremely corrupt, and not only is that a big shock to everyone, “libertarians” absolutely will not have it.
    Trump can do no wrong. That’s the gist of most of the opinions expressed by you idiots. Do you not see how deranged you’re being?

    1. He is exposing spying on Americans by the Obama admin.

      Evidently there are more than a few Cong. critters that want that to stop.

      I wonder why? /sarc

      1. FOX News turns brains into turnips dude.

  31. Amash? The “Libertarian from CAIR?

    Sharia Justin? Really?

    Very Libertarian. /sarc (for the dense)

  32. Always fun seeing the cultists rush to defend their dear leader. Can’t handle any negative (and true I might add) criticism. Never a more pathetic bunch of people.

    1. And your opinion of the FBI and CIA spying on the Trump campaign with the help of the Brits and Aussies?

      And the Obama admin. spying on Congress? And on ordinary Americans?

  33. Is Amash implicated in “Spygate” ?

    If the documents ever get unclassified and released we may find out.

    1. Didn’t you know? Amash was in the basement of Comet Pizza conspiring to launch his coup along with Hillary, Pelosi, Obama, Podesta, MacGyver, Vin Diesel, and Inspector Clouseau.

      1. I thought it was Brennan, Comey, and Obama. With Hilary giving a vital assist.

  34. Barr publicly stated that Trump’s effort to remove Mueller stemmed from his sincere belief that Mueller and the probe was biased. You can argue that it was a mistaken belief. But does Reason or Amash have any evidence that prove Barr wrong? Or that any of it was “inherently corrupt?” For all intents and purposes, Trump cooperated with the probe.

    Amash seems undisturbed by the fact that the probe was a politically motivated stunt based on a sham dossier. The government spied on key figures. Are libertarians supposed to take pleasure in the government moving onto secondary means of prosecuting their subjects after failing to make a legal case?

    When the government bans plastic straws, it’s a small imposition on my choices. If what happened to BK and Trump becomes the new norm, it will undermine and destabilizes the government and further divide the nation. The democrats want to investigate ANYTHING they don’t like. ANYTHING. Blue states and colleges threaten fossil fuel companies and force companies to divest from NRA and Israel.

    Amash isn’t going to earn some brownie points from me for acting like some “voices in the wilderness”. I expect libertarians to defend 1A rights of bigots even if they find their personal conduct to be abhorrent. A sitting American president was accused of treason based on some surface level suspicion and libertarians aren’t bothered by it. I look forward to the day his primary challenger unseats him. to be honest.

  35. “Some of the president’s actions were inherently corrupt,” Amash concludes. “Other actions were corrupt—and therefore impeachable—because the president took them to serve his own interests.”

    All objective, unemotional, nonpartisan Americans with a still-functioning brain know this. But it’s fun watching POO* getting more and more unhinged as the day of reckoning draws nearer and nearer. Problem is, being a teetotaler, POO doesn’t have buckets of Scotch to drown his sorrows in like his soul brother in crime, Nixon.

    *President Orange Obstruction

    1. Blowhard is true self awareness.

  36. Partisan hack TEAM LP drones will still vote for Amash if he gets the nom. Maybe Justin will pick Eggs McMuffin as his running mate for the perfect Libertardian-NeoCon NeverTrump fusion ticket.

  37. Amash is affected by TDS. In short, be believes Trump obstructed justice because Trump
    1 wanted the investigation to be limited in scope,
    2 thought Mueller was conflicted,
    3 thought the investigation should have wrapped up sooner,
    4 thought Jeff Sessions shouldn’t have recused, and
    5 thought that the entire investigation was unjustified and political.

    Of course, Trump said all of these things on Twitter publicly. But because he also said those things to people in the White House, and gave orders consistent with that, Amash supposes that Trump obstructed justice by impeding the investigation with a corrupt intent.

    The problem is: Trump was right about all those things. And he had a right to say so. The investigation was a political operation founded on no evidence, conducted by conflicted angry Trump-hating Democrats. Amash assumes that acting in your own self-interest is necessarily contrary to justice and establishes corrupt intent, but that’s not true.

    A separate but important point is that Amash carefully constructs an implication that Trump could have suborned Michael Cohen’s perjury. But he doesn’t come out and say that, because there’s no evidence that this was the case. That was the juicy nugget of FAKE NEWS by Buzzfeed that Mueller spoke out to contradict.

    1. We’ve yet to establish that obstructing justice publicly is a permissible form of obstruction of justice, but the good lord can only say where Trump’s fat, orange, demented misrule will take us.

      When even a hack partisan Republican peckerwood like Sessions knows when he’s legally required to recuse himself, don’t you suppose that an incompetent manchild with no government experience whatsoever might be on the wrong side of that issue?

      1. In light of the 1st amendment, I think it’s already pretty clearly established that you can’t “obstruct justice” by publicly expressing your opinion that an investigation is improper, and ought to be terminated.

        Actual, illegal obstruction of justice requires that the obstructive conduct be itself illegal, (Destruction of evidence under a preservation order, for instance.) or if legal, corrupt motives must be proven. Public speech has a hard time qualifying, and for 5th amendment reasons public denials of guilt are pretty much never “obstruction of justice” even if objectively false.

        Talking about firing somebody you’re legally entitled to fire, and then not doing it, is going to be REALLY hard to make an obstruction case out of, which is why Mueller basically gave up on it.

        1. Bob Mueller disagrees with you.

      2. Sessions’ recusal was entirely unnecessary. There was no conflict of interest. https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/jeff-sessions-recusal-unnecessary/

        But it’s not surprising that Sessions tried to avoid the Russia mess and folded immediately upon being railroaded by spurious accusations.

      3. “We’ve yet to establish that obstructing justice publicly is a permissible form of obstruction of justice”

        What a stupid statement. Obstruction of justice isn’t permissible, whether public or private. However, the fact that the statements were public is relevant to whether there was some corrupt intent and whether there was indeed obstruction of justice.

        1. Don’t try to point out facts and logic to Tony. He long ago abandoned any semblance of not being a partisan hack.

  38. I remember back when Trump was a Russian agent.

    Those were the days.

  39. In an “Inherently Corrupt” city, with “Inherently Corrupt” politicians, and an “Inherently Corrupt” government, what is the problem?

  40. Kind of fun to watch this moron commit career suicide in real-time. He’s lost all interest in the illegal spying and farce that is the FISA court. Instead he’s gone full TDS and seems destined to become a full-time reason-type “libertarian” loser after he’s primaried out of his comfy DC job.

  41. There’s still one fundamental problem here; how can Trump obstruct an illegitimate investigation? Show me where a special counsel is in the Constitution. Mueller is a DoJ appointee investigating at the behest of the executive branch. To suggest that the head of the executive cannot manage the executive is absurd. If you don’t like the results, why task the executive with investigating itself in the first place? What Amash calls corrupt intent is the Constitution and separation of powers at work.

    1. Rand Paul says Mueller investigation was the “antithesis of libertarianism.”

  42. The charge against Trump was not “Attempted to serve his own interests”. It was obstruction of justice. The actions he took unquestionably were an attempt to obstruct the DOJ, but were they truly an attempt to obstruct justice?

    If the tale is true of how the FBI and CIA conspired to illegally surveil American citizens as a means to keep Trump out of the White House, then is an attempt to obstruct this illegal activity accurately described as obstruction of justice?

    Attempting to obstruct corrupt DOJ officials does not establish corrupt intent on Trump’s part. Without “corrupt intent” it is not possible establish obstruction of justice.

    No one hold Trump in greater contempt that I do, and defending him makes me want to vomit, but I don’t think that the facts justify the charge of obstruction of justice.

    1. “unquestionably were an attempt to obstruct the DOJ”

      That is an empty statement. Anytime anyone mounts any sort of defense of themselves against a Federal a criminal investigation that statement would apply.

      Even more so if the subject of the investigation is being railroaded.

      1. If you attempt to prevent a police officer from beating a man to death you are guilty of obstructing a police officer, however, you are not guilty of obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duty. The difference is that the cop is not authorized to beat people to death. Murder is not part of a cop’s duties, at least not yet.

        Trump did unquestionably attempt to obstruct the DOJ. Forgetting the Mueller investigation, Trump has admitted as much when he said he wanted to fire Comey. I’m arguing that since Trump knew that he never conspired with the Russians, he had no corrupt intent, particularly since he knew that there were FBI and CIA agents actively attempting to undo his election.

        By the way, when you say that something is an “empty statement” don’t then explain what the statement means. Empty statements don’t have a meaning because…they are EMPTY!

        1. “Trump has admitted as much when he said he wanted to fire Comey.”

          By your ‘logic’ that what Trump wanted to do came via justification from Rosenstein makes Rosenstein guilty of obstructing the DOJ. Even though he was the DOJ.

          You keep using this work unquestionably…

          1. …wordunquestionably…

            1. Your use of the word is…

              questionable.

              1. I accept your questionable criticism of my use of “unquestionably”

  43. What a bunch of Lindsey Grahams we have here.

    We had to listen to decades of family values lectures, platitudes about limited government and spending, how the police are always right, how we need to have accountability and transparency in politics, how we needed someone who represents the common man to fight the “elites,” and how we need to retake our moral culture from the “socialist weirdos.”

    So, naturally, the answer is somehow a twice-divorced, tax-dodging, NYC millionaire that constantly Tweets like a 14-year old and continuously hires known dirtbags.

    People on here love to complain about “Trump hating” as if it comes from a vacuum. As if the guy is some moral angel that has never done anything sketchy and who doesn’t act intentionally sketchy all the time.

    I was raised that if you make a deal, you stick with it. So, guess what, religious right…you can have Trump and Kavanaugh. But never let it be forgotten that you literally threw out every argument you ever made over the last several decades, to get your Trump and your Kavanaugh. the rest of your whining is nothing but a sad attempt to justify your own total failure of principles. I’d love to see any of you choke on your own reasoning when your kid throws it back in your face someday to justify never-ending shitty behavior.

  44. Also on the topic of so-called “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is this: the plain-as-day continued existence of OBAMA DERANGEMENT SYNDROME.

    -“Obama’s going to take all our guns” – didn’t happen. And ironically there have already been more new gun-restricting federal laws passed under Trump’s watch (1) than under Obama’s. (0)
    -“Obama’s going to make everyone Muslim and subject us all to Sharia Law.” – didn’t happen.
    -“Obama’s going to round up all the Christians and put us in Obamacare death camps.” -didn’t happen.
    -“The government spends too much” – ok, so what about government spending now?
    -“The government shouldn’t pick winners and losers” so explain to me Boeing, Carrier, tariffs, etc. etc.

    This whole Amash vs.Freedom Caucus spat is emblematic of a larger trend…and proves that the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus were never anything more than…wait for it:

    OBAMA DERANGEMENT SYNDROME.

    Unless you can give me another plausible explanation for the conduct and voting patterns of the Freedom Caucus (as opposed to their rhetoric), that’s my position. Not one of the Obama “fears” came to pass. And none of the principles of the Freedom Causcus are being followed now with a Republican-controlled Legislature, Court, and Presidency. Sp basically, it just means that Obama Derangement Syndrome and the need to exclude “others” from the country were the only true motivations for getting behind Trump, not any sort of adherence to the Freedom Caucus/Tea Party/religious values we heard so much about through the last several elections.

    1. Too wordy. You need to study OBL better, he’s not perfect but he has pith.

  45. […] the report has been animating Michigan Rep. Justin Amash’s public calls for consideration of impeachment proceedings against Trump. He got the message again […]

  46. […] of the report has been animating Michigan Rep. Justin Amash’s public calls for consideration of impeachment proceedings against Trump. He got the message again […]

  47. […] the report has been animating Michigan Rep. Justin Amash’s public calls for consideration of impeachment proceedings against Trump. He got the message again […]

  48. […] the report has been animating Michigan Rep. Justin Amash’s public calls for consideration of impeachment proceedings against Trump. He got the message again […]

  49. […] it easy for voters to track his libertarian record. It also helps explain why his Twitter-thread ruminations that President Donald Trump should potentially face impeachment hearings are so detailed and […]

  50. […] it easy for voters to track his libertarian record. It also helps explain why his Twitter-thread ruminations that President Donald Trump should potentially face impeachment hearings are so detailed and […]

  51. […] it easy for voters to track his libertarian record. It also helps explain why his Twitter-thread ruminations that President Donald Trump should potentially face impeachment hearings are so detailed and […]

  52. […] has famously come forward as the only Republican in Congress willing to publicly consider impeachment. Paul is opposed to impeaching Trump, and his opposition is partly rooted in his concerns that the […]

  53. […] has famously come forward as the only Republican in Congress willing to publicly consider impeachment. Paul is opposed to impeaching Trump, and his opposition is partly rooted in his concerns that the […]

  54. […] has famously come forward as the only Republican in Congress willing to publicly consider impeachment. Paul is opposed to impeaching Trump, and his opposition is partly rooted in his concerns that the […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.