Justin Amash

Justin Amash Blasts Attorney General Barr: 'The Public and Congress Were Misled'

In another long Twitter thread, the libertarian-ish Michigan Republican says AG Barr "helped further the president’s false narrative about the investigation."


Attorney General William Barr deliberately, and repeatedly, misled both Congress and the American people about the basic facts of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigation into the Trump campaign, Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) claimed today in a series of mid-day tweets.

In advance of a planned town hall meeting in his district on Tuesday night—and after a week in which he generated nothing but criticism from his fellow Republicans for expressing the opinion that Trump engaged in "impeachable conduct" by trying to disrupt the Mueller probe—Amash stuck to his guns and turned his fire towards Barr, who handled the release of the Mueller report last month.

"Barr has deliberately misrepresented key aspects of Mueller's report and decisions in the investigation, which has helped further the president's false narrative about the investigation," Amash tweeted. "Barr has so far successfully used his position to sell the president's false narrative to the American people. This will continue if those who have read the report do not start pushing back on his misrepresentations and share the truth."

Prior to making the redacted version of the Mueller report public, Barr released a four-page letter supposedly summarizing the report. In that letter, Barr told Congress that Mueller had not reached a decision about whether the president should be indicted for obstructing justice. Barr added that he had reviewed the evidence and found it to be "not sufficient" to conclude that the president had committed a crime.

Once the nearly full text of the Mueller report was released, however, it became obvious that Mueller's decision not to draw a conclusion about the obstruction question hinged on two factors: longstanding Justice Department precedent that forbids the indictment of a sitting president, and Mueller's belief that Congress was the constitutionally appropriate body to determine the question of obstruction (and the related question of impeachment).

Barr's March 24 letter to Congress, Amash wrote on Tuesday, "selectively quotes and summarizes points in Mueller's report in misleading ways." Amash zeroed-in on Barr's claim that the White House "fully cooperated" with the investigation. In fact, as the Mueller report makes clear, investigators sought to interview the president directly and instead had to settle for written answers, which Amash said were "incomplete or unresponsive."

Certainly, Trump was well within his rights to refuse to comply with a voluntary request for an interview with Mueller. But Barr's description of the White House's full and complete cooperation with the investigation is an exaggeration at best.

Indeed, Mueller has claimed the attorney general's summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the report—though it is admittedly difficult to distill a 400-plus page report into a four-page letter. Barr did eventually release the full report, so Amash's (and others) complaints about Barr's misleading letter are effectively a complaint about the head of the Justice Department's role in doing public relations for the president.

And, more broadly, that seems to be Amash's chief complaint about how Republicans in general have handled the release of the special counsel's report. Rather than soberly considering the implications of the report—such as the fact that Trump clearly tried to disrupt and stop the Mueller investigation on several occasions, only to be thwarted when members of his own White House staff deliberately disobeyed the president's direct orders—almost all Republicans in Congress and other elected offices have jumped to defend the president. "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 wrote in his initial tweet-storm about the Mueller report last week.

It's notable that Amash has not yet signed his name to any of the current congressional proposals calling for impeachment or further investigation of the president. Last week, he told CNN that he wanted to make sure any actions were "based on the positions I have and not based on some positions someone else has."

In their most literal form, Amash's ongoing criticisms of Trump, Barr, and his fellow Republicans are not direct calls for impeachment but appeals to the principles that conservatives valued in the days before Trump. In that same interview last week with CNN's Haley Byrd (Amash has declined to appear on any cable news network to address his more recent tweets), Amash said he wanted to "defend the Constitution" by outlining his views on the Mueller report "in the most clear-cut, sober way possible."

What Amash hopes to achieve remains unclear—perhaps tonight's town hall will provide more information about what Amash sees as the next step—but the fact that so few Republicans have followed his lead in questioning Barr's and Trump's actions is both frustrating and completely typical.

NEXT: Pete Buttigieg, Democratic Capitalist

Justin Amash Mueller Investigation Donald Trump William Barr Impeachment

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

242 responses to “Justin Amash Blasts Attorney General Barr: 'The Public and Congress Were Misled'

  1. Partisan politics has been, and continues to be, a team sport. It’s not about what Trump did or did not do. It’s about what team he is on. Republicans are not about limited and responsible government. They are about sticking up for their team lead no matter what.

    A Democrat president could have done the exact same thing, with exactly the same report, and the Republicans would be shitting their pants in fury. But it’s a Republican president and so now they are throwing their principles, the few still remaining, under the bus in their rush to defend his actions.

    No sorry, it’s NOT like team sports. Because even teams and fans will abandon a cheater.

    1. Would a team abandon a captain that sold weapons to enemies, resulting in multiple deaths of said captain’s teammates?

      Oh wait, Trump didn’t do that, so it was hardly even covered by the mainstream media. But Trump did use potty language while the DC filth attacked him from every angle.

      Carry on.

      1. Headline: He mispronounced expresso.

      2. @Ryan : Trump didn’t do that????? Have you been paying any attention at all to arms deals with Saudi Arabia?

        1. Saudi Arabia is an enemy? That is news, last I heard they are long time allies.

          1. It’s a secret.

    2. But if both teams cheat, what team to we root for?

      1. The better one.

        Every time Republicans set a new standard of corruption and global malfeasance, there is always some bespectacled cunt lurking in the corner saying Democrats are (or would be) just as bad. How very convenient for Republicans.

        1. Tribalist are going to tribal. Can you be any more blindly partisan and given to group think?

          1. Yes, I could support the psychotic asshole party for no reason other than blind partisanship and groupthink.

            I happen to be partisan because it’s the most practical way to defeat those bastards.

            1. You happen. To be partisan because you lack the ability to think for yourself and anything resembling self awareness. You prose is always simplistic and rarely contains anything approaching an original thought. It is merely creed, a devotion to dogma that would make the most zealot religious practitioner appear agnostic in comparison. You simplistic hatred of anyone not like you does not demonstrate any in depth analysis but rather a religious attachment to the idea that you are better then everyone else. You are a caricature of the simpleton leftist partisan, the prototypical useful idiot that legend has it Lenin claimed to have used to gain power. And like that mythical useful idiot, if your side ever does gain power, you will unlikely enjoy the fruits of your devotion.

        2. Twenty years ago, Democrats very publicly established the standard that, without an underlying crime, obstruction of justice is not grounds to remove a sitting President. If that’s convenient for Trump and the Republicans now, well, sauce for the goose, y’know?

          1. I don’t want this president removed until the election. He’s the rancid gift that keeps on giving for Democrats. Pence would look sane by comparison, and we all know how much affirmative action Americans give to Republicans. If only the standard were still “don’t be insane.”

            1. When the party you prefer contains Nadler, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, AOC etc, it probably isn’t a good idea to point out your perception of the other parties “insanity”.

              1. Oh, so your problem is you’re a racist. The thing about Republicans is that they are so simple to understand.

                1. Simplistic definitely explains your understanding. You love your caricature. Because some of those listed happen to be minorities the conclusion must be racism, right? Because anything more esoteric would tax your rather jejune understanding of the world. It is far easier to creat caricatures of your opponents that to actually engage them intellectually. You seem perfectly content to wallow in your own ignorance. And charges of racism are the height of intellectual laziness. I consider anymore when someone labels me a racist in a political debate that I already have won. It demonstrates that my opponent cannot counter the points I have made so instead must resort to impugning my motives. It also speaks volumes that the first thing that you considered when reading that list is their race. I had not considered their race in the least. I listed them all because of specific situations and or a history of less then sane remarks. Who forgets Rep. Johnson worrying about Guam flipping over because their were to many US military assets their and the weight would cause the island to capsize? But no instead you notice their race, can you explain that?

                2. More proof Tony is a mentally subnormal shitbag. And that Tony is a discredit to homos everywhere.

                  Stupid bitch.

          2. Tony can you do the world a great big favor and fuck yourself to death?

        3. No Tony, there are legions of us up front in the light screaming that the democrats are a million times worse. FFS, I tell you this every goddamn day.

          Republicans are somewhat corrupt too, but then much of the time we are forced to pick the lesser of two evils lest electing enough democrats brings with it a thousand years of darkness.

          It’s just a shame you and your friends won’t do humanity a favor and kill yourselves.

    3. Foxboro MA has no comment.

    4. No sorry, it’s NOT like team sports.

      I didn’t see the twist coming!*

      *That’s what he said.

      1. Crusty, aren’t you too old for tittie-twisters?

        1. Texas Chilli Bowl > Polish Bike Ride > Twittie-Twister imo

    5. >>>Because even teams and fans will abandon a cheater

      Debbie Belichick on line 2 …

    6. So you cheer for the team conducting politically based criminal investigations? Yeah go fuck yourself.

      1. Bill Clinton would fully agree with you.

        1. It’s so amazing that when it comes to Clinton all the bullshit about ‘believing women’ goes right out the window.

          It’s like no one remembers that the whole issue wasn’t about Monica–he was in court over OTHER allegations of sexual harassment/assault.

          It wasn’t about politics AT ALL.

          1. you forgot to mention witness tampering

            1. Was that ‘the meeting on the tarmac’?

          2. All the shit about collusion too. With China in the case of the Clintons. They should have been executed for that.

      2. The counter-intelligence investigation into Trump’s campaign started when a drunken aide bragged to a foreign diplomat about inside knowledge of Russian support to help Trump.

        Mueller’s appointment came after Trump boasted about firing the head of the FBI to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov & Ambassador Kislyak, saying “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

        Before Mueller finished his investigation, some of the things we learned include :

        (1) Trump’s NSA head Flynn lied to the Vice President about his contacts with Russia.

        (2) Trump’s campaign head Manafort gave private campaign briefings to a man the CIA considered a Russian spy

        (3) Trump’s son-in-law asked to use Russian secure communication equipment for secret messages to the Kremlin.

        (4) Trump’s son reacted with ecstatic glee when told (through an intermediary) that the Russian government would help Daddy get elected president.

        (5) Trump’s fixer Cohen conducted secret negotiations with Russia on a massive business deal. These continued throughout the campaign right up to the eve of the election.

        (6) Trump repeatedly lied during the campaign when asked specific questions about his business dealings with Moscow.

        (7) Trump’s fixer (Cohen) negotiated to suppress embarrassing tapes of Trump supposedly held by someone in Russia.

        And thru all this, Russian Intelligence worked systematically to put Trump in the Oval Office. Mueller determined that Russian agency hackers targeted Ms Clinton’s home computer within five hours of Trump “joking” Russia should go after her emails. Another Mueller find : The first messages stolen from John Podesta’s computer by Russian Intelligence were released only one hour after the Access Hollywood story broke (rocking Trump’s campaign).

        “Politically based criminal investigation” ?!? Who’s gullible enough to buy that crap? Trump earned his investigation. He earned it with the long trail of sleaze and stupidity left by himself, his family, and his associates……

        1. >>>when a drunken aide bragged to a foreign diplomat

          no that was an inside yob.

        2. Nothing you wrote has any connection with reality.

        3. gbr has an active fantasy life, or a tin-foil hat mis-function.
          Or, gbr’s a lying lefty scumbag.

          1. Sevo, can’t it be both?

        4. Everything you stated is either gross exaggeration or contradicted by Mueller when he concluded that no one in the Trump Administration or American (in general) conspired with Russia to impact the election. This was a feckless exercise in petulant progressive behavior. The same progressives who turned a blind eye to Obama who on a hot mic actually told Putin through Medevdev that once he was re-elected and he didn’t have to worry about what ordinary Americans thought the he would be able to give Putin what he wanted. Please progressives are so childish.

        5. Wrong from the first premise. Impressive even for you grb. Usually you want to throw in at least one truthful fact to seem semi credible.

          1. JesseAz : What does it say about your “Politically based criminal investigation” bullshit that you have to lie to defend it?

            1. It seems to be the case that you have the least familiarity with facts. Your list was deeply flawed, outdated and contradicted by the Mueller report.

              1. “contradicted by the Mueller report”

                Be specific.
                But you can’t, can you?

                1. Maybe if you read real news, and not progressive fan fiction, you would be aware of the actual findings within the report. As it is, I don’t feel like spending a bunch of time going through the report just to refute your inane claims.

                  In other words, the onus isn’t on us to disprove your shrill, retarded proclamations. It’s on you. That’s how debate works.

                  1. Sorry Shitty,

                    Every point I listed above is in Mueller’s report.

                    What’s the point of all your useless lies when you don’t have a single fact behind you? And you know it too, which must be particularly galling. Yeah, you can talk. You can insult. But it’s all empty bullshit. Because you don’t have any facts behind you…..

    7. Because even teams and fans will abandon a cheater.

      LO-fucking L at this exceptional posturing. The hell they will. You think the New England Patriots lost fans or front-runners because of their gamesmanship? They’re now the most celebrated team in league history.

    8. “No sorry, it’s NOT like team sports. Because even teams and fans will abandon a cheater.”

      Explains the Giants and Barry Bonds…

    9. Amash’s statement that Barr misrepresented Mueller’s statement is borderline incoherent, if Barr tried to misrepresent it, why would he release virtually the whole thing a week later, with no redactions of any of the collusions. Either Barr is entirely incompetent at coverups, or their was no coverup.

      If Barr wanted to coverup the report he would have delayed the release of the full report for about 18 months, which is how long Mueller delayed the release of his report after he already knew there was no collusion.

      1. Unlike his boss and his boss’ super-fans at sites like this, Barr isn’t a wild-eyed idiot. His goal wasn’t to stake out a ludicrously maximalist position that wrecks his credibility with all but the die-hard converted. He wanted his partisanship to be plausibly deniable. He happens to have missed the plausibility mark, but that’s what he was going for.

        A week is more than enough head start to frame issues and coordinate spin. Especially when the framing document is a newsbite-length piece of advocacy that can’t effectively be fact checked against a 400 page tome that it distorts and which few people will ever open.

    10. Haven’t been more happy to see a first comment so well written.

  2. It’s encouraging that not every Republican has sold out to Putin. Amash joins Bill Kristol, David Frum, Jennifer Rubin, and John McCain (RIP) on the short list of conservatives and Republicans who have maintained their patriotism and dignity under this illegitimate Russian puppet government.


      1. BTW the petition makes a great substitute for puppy pads…

        1. But then your iPad smells like dog piss?

    1. One thing the report DID decide is that there was no Russian “collusion.” The points in this article speak to the possible obstruction of the investigation. Ours is not an “illegitimate Russian government” by any stretch of the imagination. Get. A. Grip.

      1. Like a true libertarian, Amash is arguing for process crimes to penalize people he doesnt like when there is no actual original crime. Also like a reue libertarian, Amash can’t bother to read or understand the constitution and the executive powers prescribed.

          1. Lol you have no argument. Called typing on a phone dipshit. What’s your excuse?

            1. My excuse for being able to properly spell words?

              1. Your excuse for being incapable 9f logical debate so instead you focus on minor errors. Rather then countering his argument you attack the person. This is generally perceived as an admission that you are incapable of countering your opponents points but are also incapable of acting with dignity and honor.

          2. Not sure that it is all that important especially since I understand Amash has difficulty spelling words like the “Constitution”.

        1. Your modern LP — Fifth Amendment isn’t really needed if you’re innocent, is it criminal?

    2. Hah +1

    3. What about Jeff Flake and Evan McMullin?

      1. More deep state Mormon mobsters who would sell this country out as fast as you can name at least 3 of Brigham Young’s 55 wives.

  3. Is there any other clickbait factory taking Amash seriously?

    1. CNN and msnbc.

    2. Yes, but Reason is the only one prepping the ground for Amash’s 2020 run. CNN, MSNBC, etc. are not.

      Boehm, Et al. are going to be crushed when Libertarians don’t fall into line behind his campaign.

      1. I wonder if Amash will think it is worth it when he garners 2% or less, Trump wins again, and is out of a job. I guess he can go back to running pop’s tool company and their Chinese affiliate (no wonder he hates tariffs). Guy worked like 3 years in his life, kinda sorta, before being a Rep. To piss it away being a poor man’s Gary Johnson…. not too bright.

    3. Politico and USA Today

  4. I feel that if Amash is going to be referred to as a Libtertarian-ish representative, then maybe he would do better trying to get libertarian-ish laws passed, or at minimum, some un-laws passed.

    Surely there’s some legislation somewhere that needs to be stopped.

    This stop-Trump-at-all-costs attitude is costing us a lot.

    1. He has dozens of pieces of legislation that he sponsored or co-sponsored. Some are meh, but some are stuff libertarians really can get behind. But no, there are no giant Great White Libertarian Hope pie-in-the-sky bills such as Ron Paul used to promote and never get passed. But acting like he’s done nothing but rag on Trump is stupid. He has a record. Look at it.


  5. I’d love to figure out his angle here. 3D chess? What’s the endgame?

    1. What’s the endgame?

      Taking back the infinity stones from Thanos?

      1. The end game may be Amash running for president, on the Libertarian ticket, which is devoid of anyone worth the slightest chance of being on every ballot. He and Paul may well figure their only chance at the Big Time comes by teaming up in a year they figure their chances are best, with neither side embracing their candidate(s). Reason would then have to abandon Buttplug and wet themselves with the semi libertarian ticket.

        1. Whether or not he runs for president, pretty sure Amash’s endgame is “conservative” pundit for CNN, a la whiny Kasich and fatty Ana Navarro

        2. A futile gesture, then.

    2. What’s the endgame?

      A crying child only us REAL MCU fans recognized?

    3. I would love to know the answer to that question. He has got to be trying some type of strategy here. I mean, hashing up a soon-to-be dead story as a place to stake a flag in the ground is very confusing.

    4. What’s the endgame?

      Setting up plot lines for future films and television shows?

    5. What’s the endgame?

      A known homosexual refuses to accept his sexuality and instead goes back to a time in which he knows his sexuality will not be accepted by society in order to resist embracing his sexuality?

    6. Amash is too principled to retire and collect his Congressional pension, so he is contriving to lose his next election (at which point he forfeits it)?

      Makes as much sense as any other explanation.

    7. What’s the endgame?

      Tapping into the underdeveloped tween female superhero fan market?

    8. What’s the endgame?

      Not beating Avatar?

      1. I guess Arkady Baladan is just chopped liver to you phillistine.

    9. Beating dead horses brings it’s own pleasure, for some selective clients…

    10. “What’s the endgame?”
      2020 Libertarian presidential run. That’s also why Reason is writing so many articles for him.

      1. It’s a Koch-funded conspiracy!

    11. Queen to King’s level 1

  6. The president not submitting to to an in person interview but giving written answers which was his right is your prime example of Barr misleading the public about whether the administration fully cooperated with the investigation is pretty weak.

    If trying to avoid exposure to a potential perjury trap is obstructing justice, then how many people under investigation are guilty?

    Is this a standard we want to live with when the president will not be Trump?

    1. If Trump is so innocent, what does he have to hide? Do you think he’s been behaving like someone with nothing to hide?

      He’s the most powerful government official on earth. Have some standards for fuck’s sake.

      1. When I don’t let the police into my house to rummage around looking for things without a warrant I must be trying to hide something. If I am so innocent, what do I have to hide? Am I behaving like someone with nothing to hide?

        1. What kind of cookie do I get for predicting this precise response?

          I said have standards for a government official. The most important one. It is in the public discourse outside of Sean Hannity’s hair flaps that the president committed many crimes but hasn’t been indicted because he is the president, and that is the only reason.

          Again, find some standards. You’re supposed to be government skeptics for Christ’s sake.

          1. So you’re saying Loretta lynch, louis Lerner, and Eric holder should all be in jail with Hillary then?

            Maybe you’re winning me over

            1. I’ll never win you over because your brain has been dry-fucked by rightwing propaganda for many years.

              1. Says the person who has never posted anything original but parrots verbatim the popular tropes of the far left.

                1. Are you just so dense Tony that you are incapable of seeing the gross irony of you accusing others of being unthinking partisans?

                  1. One side of the partisan spectrum actually does engage in thinking.

                    Some Republicans do too, but they’re sociopaths who are exploiting your ignorance and gullibility for nefarious ends.

                    1. It is ironic that you think Democrats actually think about issues. The history of major Democratic initiatives and the less then desirable repercussions, most of which they were warned about, are legion.

                    2. Tony, you support the most evil people on earth. Your claims are retarded and laughable. I look forward to a time when people of your ilk are finally put down like the traitors you all are.

                      Or you could just GTFO now. I hear Venezuela is run to your liking. Go there and enjoy the comradeship of your fellow travelers. There is no place for your kind here.

          2. Tony’s standards are apparently political inquisitions into political entities he foesnt like. Iran agrees as they investigate homosexuals. Way to go Tony.

          3. Tony
            May.28.2019 at 6:27 pm
            “What kind of cookie do I get for predicting this precise response?”

            A shit sandwich.
            You post imbecilic comments, get called on them and then expect a prize for posting such shit?

      2. “If Trump is so innocent, what does he have to hide? Do you think he’s been behaving like someone with nothing to hide?”

        Any other Amendments we should do away with?

        The Left is already opposed to the First, Second, and Fifth Amendments.

      3. My standards are the protections every citizen, including the president, enjoys based on the constitution. What are your standards Tony?

    2. His cooperation was so complete that when his lawyers asked Mueller’s team two questions they folded their tents and went home:

      1. What information do you need from the President that we haven’t already provided?

      2. What evidence do you have of any criminal activity that would compel the President or anyone else to submit to a compulsory interview?

      It was pretty clear the only criminal activity they could find in the whole investigation (other than Manafort’s decade old crimes) was the very act of talking to the FBI, who in those circumstances is going to talk to the FBI or the DOJ voluntarily?

  7. What Amash hopes to achieve remains unclear—perhaps tonight’s town hall will provide more information about what Amash sees as the next step

    Wild speculation > his intentions imo

  8. Having burned his bridges, he’s brought in some Florine so that he can set the ashes on fire. I guess it’s sort of understandable, because he HAS burned all his bridges. But it’s still rather pathetic.

    Bluntly, if Barr genuinely misrepresented Mueller’s report, nothing is stopping Mueller from going public and saying so. And yet he doesn’t. Why?

    Logic says it’s because Barr didn’t materially misrepresent the report. At worst he simply didn’t put the spin on it Mueller would have preferred.

    1. Bluntly, if Barr genuinely misrepresented Mueller’s report, nothing is stopping Mueller from going public and saying so. And yet he doesn’t. Why?

      This is the one little inconvenient fact that everyone screeching about this, including Amash, is deliberately ignoring.

      Does anyone seriously think that every news org isn’t lining up young interns to blow Mueller in exchange for an exclusive scoop? He could have nipped this all in the bud immediately by calling a press conference and saying, “Barr is out of line. What he’s saying here is not what I was trying to get across.” Instead, he was complaining about the press coverage of the report for misrepresenting or misinterpreting what he found.

      The fact that he hasn’t indicates one of two things–he’s a passive-aggressive bitch who’s ass-mad that his team spent $30 million and couldn’t find shit on his target, or he’s fine with Barr’s letter to Congress and everything else that’s come up in the aftermath.

      1. In fact it appears Mueller is doing everything possible to not have to testify. Though the Democrats may offer him a super secret no press allowed hearing. With the promise that the testimony will remain a secret (other than a few unsupported leaks or out of context leaks I am sure).

        1. He can’t testify. He apparently hates Trump over his best bud being fired, and himself being passed over for the job. But if he testifies, he’s got two choices:

          1) He clears Trump.
          2) He sets himself up for perjury charges.

          So his best option is to remain silent so the idiotic accusations can continue. And, why wouldn’t he do that? It’s why he sat on his conclusion that there hadn’t been any “collusion” for the better part of a year, while futilely chasing obstruction charges that didn’t pan out, when he could have issued part 1 of his report early last year.

    2. Jeez, if he showed any understanding of the issues I might be able to take him seriously.

      Nobody at reason seems to understand any of the actual issues anyway. Jack Goldsmith guts Mueller’s case for obstruction based on the Clinton era Clear Statements doctrine, which all DOJ prosecutors, including Mueller are required to defer to.

      In a nutshell that OLC opinion states that no law that implicates seperation of powers applies to the President, unless there is a clear statement in the law that includes the President.

      Here is Goldsmith answering his critics, the first point is very telling about the Mueller report because it includes Ben Wittes response:

      “- None of the critics defends the report’s actual reasoning, which is pretty obviously flawed.
      -There are reasons to question the presidential clear statement rule, but under governing law, it applies here. This explains why the Mueller report, unlike some of my critics, embraces the rule without qualification.
      -Prior investigations of presidents do not provide precedents on which, under governing law, the report could rely. This explains why the Mueller report did not mention those investigations.
      -The exception to the presidential clear statement rule, and the analogy between obstruction of justice and bribery, cannot be leveraged to permit application of the obstruction statutes to most of the 10 events described in Volume II of the Mueller report.”

  9. So Libertarian Justin Amash now believe nobody has the 5th Amendment right to refuse to talk to Law Enforcement. It is obstruction.

    Ultimately, the special counsel “recogniz[ed] that the President would not be interviewed voluntarily” and chose not to subpoena him because of concerns that the resulting “potentially lengthy constitutional litigation” would delay completion of the investigation.

    The president instead gave written answers to questions submitted by the special counsel. Those answers are often incomplete or unresponsive. Mueller found them “inadequate” and again sought to interview the president.

    The report says the president’s counsel was told that interviewing him was “vital” to Mueller’s investigation and that it would be in the interest of the public and the presidency. Still Trump refused.

    Barr says the White House “fully cooperated” with the investigation and that Mueller “never sought” or “pushed” to get more from the president, but the report says Mueller unsuccessfully sought an interview with the president for over a year.

  10. I’m embarrassed for Reason.

      1. Yeah, that too.

    1. new here?

  11. muito bom

    Episódio Online de Filme e Série, Resumo do Capítulo da Novela

  12. “Barr has deliberately misrepresented key aspects of Mueller’s report and decisions in the investigation, which has helped further the president’s false narrative about the investigation,”

    What key aspects? There was only one (collusion) and Trump was effectively cleared because the investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing. Amash is crashing and burning.

    1. Tlaib’s probably been getting her constituents to harrass Amash as not being a “real Arab” as long as he wasn’t calling for Trump’s impeachment.

    2. “This will continue if those who have read the report do not start pushing back on his misrepresentations and share the truth.”

      I’m still waiting for the examples of impeachable conduct, and nothing I’ve read suggests any. As Paul L. points out, Trump has the 5th amendment right to not answer questions, and even though Trump is president and we should hold him to a higher standard, it’s his actions that would be impeachable – not his choice to, or method of, answering Muller’s questions that is impeachable. Lying to Mueller under oath would be impeachable. Bill Clinton said he fully cooperated with Ken Starr, in the sense he wasn’t physically attacking him even though he Trump was far more cooperative. E.G., Clinton attempted to use executive privilege to prevent his top aids from being questioned, Obama as well. Further, if Trump wanted to interfere, but his aids and lawyers convinced him otherwise, then he didn’t.

      So if Amish is going to stand on his words, he should back it up with specific examples instead of assertions of guilt, so we can judge for ourselves. Personally I think this will hurt Amish in getting elected president, then help.

      I say this, as someone who likes Amish and his voting record.

      1. I don’t think it hurts or helps his prospects because, realistically, he has none to hurt or help. If he thinks he’s being elected President, he’s insane, and I don’t mean that as a metaphor.

        He might be able to leverage this to get the LP nomination, and become another embarrassing big fish in a small pond. But that’s actually a step down from his present position, which he has now effectively abandoned.

        I think he aspired to be the next McCain, but picked the wrong state to do it in.

    3. It is more of the case “keep repeating a lie over and over again”

  13. Someone should tell Amash that Mueller admitted Barrs conclusions were correct, he merely disliked the tone. So Amash arguing for tone over substance here?

    Amash, the new Jeff Flake!

  14. Look you stupid-ass fake libertarian Obamafag motherfucker, IG Horowitz’ report on Operation Crossfire Hurricane is going to be released at any time (almost certainly within the next week or two), and the word is that it is scathing and will contain multiple criminal referrals. Against the Obama administration that is, not the Trump administration.

    You and the rest of you turds are in such a deep hole already you should just stop digging so that you don’t look even more idiotic than you already do.

    1. and the word is

      lol Mikey has inside sources.

    2. The upcoming Horowitz Chapter is being almost completely ignored; the ever-increasing anti-trump hyperbole seems to be an attempt to preempt the fallout of those findings.

      1. Media coverage or not, it appears a lot of de Croats are going to e hauled off to Prison soon. Which is a start.

    3. “”Crossfire Hurricane “‘

      Somewhere is a FISA judge that thought he was signing off on a pair of tickets to see a Rolling Stones tribute band.

    4. Based on past performance, I rather doubt the “multiple criminal referrals” part. For the most part Horowitz’ investigations have been disappointing in that regard.

  15. Democrats, and apparently Amash, are trampeling one another to see who can repeat the Clinton impeachment. It won’t go anywhere, but I look forward to the thrashing Democrats would take if they try it.

    Of course, something tells me they’re going to wait until after the next Presidential election to try it. Season one was investigation theater, season two will be impeachment theater.

    1. At the least, they had SOMETHING on Clinton. He did suborn perjury and try to get witnesses to lie. He lied under oath himself for actions HE felt should be prosecuted when he felt he’d never be the target.

      Trump has done less than Bork did before he got smeared (and Bork really did nothing — he was ready to quit himself when the top two members of the Justice Dept who did quit said they needed continuity in leadership). Clinton put up a laughable BS claim backed up by nothing, the IC went nuts in investigating it with the approval of the media, including “Libertarian” Reason — and found jack.

      1. I’m aware, and it’s also possible that Democrats won’t take a trashing because enough people think that impeaching Orange Man Bad is a good regardless of the facts. We’ll wake up in a few years with a 400 person supreme court, too, I imagine.

        1. 9 of every gender!

        2. and 16 year old nit wits voting

          1. Yeah, that’s my expectation: The Democrats really thought Hillary’s victory was going to herald the age of perpetual Democratic control of the federal government. And nobody is so dangerous as a fanatic who just had final victory snatched away at the last minute. Losing in 2016 broke them.

            When they next come into control of both elected branches, (And it’s basically inevitable in the long run.) they’re going to do everything in their power to establish one party rule: Naturalizing all illegal aliens, lowering the voting age to 16, turning all the territories and DC into states, packing the Supreme court. If you can imagine it helping them, they’ll probably do it.

            Really the only hope of stopping this is Trump being reelected, and Barr spending the next 5 years putting most of the Democratic party leadership in prison. And even that might not do it, the up coming generation make the guys running the party now look sane.

      2. Likewise whitewater actually ended up with a dozen convictions of people actually connected to the fraud that was whitewater. And the clintons actually were self admittedly part of the group. There was actually a crime to investigate there, not this counter intelligence premise for Trump.

        1. So the 34 indictments under the Trump investigation are what? Deep state conspiracy?

          1. You mean the four process indictments that had nothing to do with the actual scope of investigation and 30 show indictments that would never be executed? Great track record, there.

            1. On a scale of 1 to fat pussy, how much do you care that Russians interfered in American elections, even considering they helped Republicans this time?

              1. China has done far, far worse.

                And it is cute seeing Democrats, for once, condemning Russia.

                How much do I care that Russia interfered? No more than I am every election. Given that they do this in ALL of them.

                But it is nice of you to admit that it traditionally does support Democrats.

                1. Well, you’re an ignorant shit. “Oh, they do that all the time! No biggie.” As if technology never gets more sophisticated.

                  You like that Trump got elected. Let that sink in. It has obliterated every other principle or ounce of patriotism that ever existed in your soul.

                  Donald fucking Trump. I just don’t get it.

                  1. Was the other choice any better? Not even close. And don’t try to wrap yourself in the flag.

                    1. One can’t compete with Trump, who humps the flag. By the way, that behavior is part of his whole shtick, if not his mental illness: he treats this entire thing as a joke. He thinks you’re a joke. He’s a fucking moron, but he knows you’re dumber. You think a guy with gilded everything and no capacity for empathy gives a single slimy shit about people like you?

                      You, friend, are the butt of his joke.

                      And how patriotic it is to be besties with Kim Jong Un and say so in Japan.

                    2. What would you say if Hillary had behaved this way vis a vis Kim Jong Un? Search deep into what’s left of your capacity for hypothetical thought and really mull it over.

                      “Then I’d support her blindly like a panting lapdog!” is not what I expect you to think, deep down.

                    3. Tony criticizes others for Whataboutisms then resorts to them himself. Tony also appears incapable of actually debating with facts but instead relies on sophomoric, redundant and unimaginative Junior high level of crass insults.

                  2. Tony, your Marxist friends offer garbage candidates. Nothing to to vote for there. Then you bitch about Trump. You’re garbage people trying to inflict yourselves on good Americans.

                    We won’t vote for that. Now go drink your Drano.

              2. If foreigners publishing candidate advocacy and leaking hacked documents is interfering in American elections, when do we start putting sanctions on the Guardian Media Group?

              3. You mean this last go-round, or the last 100 years?

              4. Tony
                May.28.2019 at 6:28 pm
                “On a scale of 1 to fat pussy, how much do you care that Russians interfered in American elections, even considering they helped Republicans this time?”

                On an IQ scale of 10 to oh, 75, how much do you claim the Russkis “interfered” with the US elections to the extent that Hag-supporters changed their vote?
                In your case, I would not be surprised if some lame GIFs caused you to change your vote, nor that you presume Hag-supporters are equally imbecilic.
                Most of us (above the 75 threshold) found them amusing.

                1. You’d care if they favored the Hag, you stupid drunk bitch.

                  1. And you wouldn’t if they didn’t. Your point?

                    The Russians turned the election, according to you, by buying a piddling number of ads on Facebook and hiring trolls.

                    If that’s all it took to remove Hillary from the halls of power, then you think even less of your side than I do.

                    1. Tony does have a small point. Democrats are pretty goddamned stupid. I have to grant him that.

                      I mean, just look at Tony. He’s a drooling imbecilic subnormal.

          2. Tony
            May.28.2019 at 5:58 pm
            “So the 34 indictments under the Trump investigation are what?”

            The stuff of ‘guilt by innuendo, which, you lying sack of shit, is all you’ve had from the day you LOST.

          3. BTW most were Russians who will never show. furthermore indictments don’t really mean anything .. you have to get a conviction. Are you really that stupid or are you just trolling?

            1. The ones that DID show had theirs tossed because the entity didn’t even exist when the crime allegedly occurred.

          4. Tony… do you know the difference between indictments and convictions?

            1. And does he know the difference between a conviction related to the investigation and one for an un-paid parking ticket?

            2. I believe my posts have been about having high standards.

              Now tell me about the conspiracy theory behind all the fake accusations against Trump associates, employees, and Russian agents.

              No biggie!

              1. Your posts have been about blindly parroting left wing tropes like some religious mantra.

      3. It would seem that way if you’ve spent the last two years with your head in a microwave.

        Jesus Christ, you morons. Nothing to see here! Oh my fucking god.

        1. There wasn’t anything to see here, or did you miss the fact that there was no evidence of collusion? Of course you did. Instead, you are going to refer to a small number of minor procedural penalties, a conviction on a crime totally unrelated to the election and a number of charges that will never see the inside of a court room because they were lodged against foreigners whose government refuses to extradite. Yeah, you’re right, we are the ones with our heads buried in the sand. BTW your foil hat is slipping.

          1. Hey, they got one of those guys on a late book return to the library! Doesn’t that count as much as the popular vote to losers like Tony?

        2. I did hear that Eric Swallowswell has seen first hand the 4 polyps belonging to Schiff … How about you? Whose polyps have you witnessed.

    2. I think they are dragging it out hoping that the dems take the Senate in 2020 to improve their chances of removing Trump.

      House impeaching and the Senate fails to remove can backfire on the impeaching party. That’s what Pelosi fears.

      1. If they win the Senate, and impeach Trump it means he won reelection, how’s that going to work out for them? Not to mention it’s not mathematically possible for them to get a 2/3 majority in the next senate to convict and remove him.

  16. “Once the nearly full text of the Mueller report was released, however, it became obvious that Mueller’s decision not to draw a conclusion about the obstruction question hinged on two factors: longstanding Justice Department precedent that forbids the indictment of a sitting president, and Mueller’s belief that Congress was the constitutionally appropriate body to determine the question of obstruction (and the related question of impeachment).”

    So, he didn’t come to a conclusion. Got it.

    “In fact, as the Mueller report makes clear, investigators sought to interview the president directly and instead had to settle for written answers, which Amash said were “incomplete or unresponsive.””

    Is this, finally, the law-and-order Libertarian moment? Who needs a Fifth Amendment if you’re innocent, amirite?

    1. Amash is simply trying to shore up his reach across the aisle in the hopes that some Democrats will vote for him for President. They won’t, of course, since he’s not a Socialist but at the very least he can hope to be last against the wall this way.

      1. if true this guy is delusional.

  17. Justin Amash Blasts Attorney General Barr: ‘The Public and Congress Were Misled’

    Oh dry up.

    1. Barr did the misleading. Not McCabe. Or Strzok and Page. Or Brennan and Clapper and Comey. Or Steele and Misoud and Halper.

      Barr is who he is upset at. Over correct conclusions that Mueller did not appreciate how they were relayed in the media.

      I am done with Amash, Boehm, and the Editors here. You are all openly hostile to the rule of law

      1. Join the Lawbertarian Party, where the Rule of Law supersedes everything else!

        1. I’d rather join the International Association for the Advancement of Pussy-Eaters, like Martin Luther King, Jr.

          1. Lol

            Just grow a pair and join the Eat-A-Booty gang.

          2. only card worth carrying.

      2. See you next thread!

        1. Oh snap you just called him a cunt!

          NashTiger is a cunt!

  18. Fuck Amash for thinking that not playing into a perjury trap means you aren’t fully cooperating. He’s a partisan hack and I hope he gets primaried hard.

      1. Partisan isn’t exclusive to parties. We’ll never know the real reason why he decided to die on this hill, but he clearly has some skeletons.

        1. It’s true – we will only be able to wildly speculate forever.

          1. Wild speculation > butthurt and unfunny juggling

          2. Someone has photos of Amash , Jeff Flake and Weld in a 3-way

            1. That is the ultimate fringe fetish.

  19. Didn’t you guys at Reason hear?

    Amash committed political suicide more than a week ago.

    In news-cycle time, that’s like seven years ago.

    It doesn’t matter what Amash says about anything anymore.

    It’s sad, really, when Nancy Pelosi won’t even play.

    Amash is still relatively young, though. Maybe he can learn to code.

    1. Maybe he can learn to code


    2. He has a bright future in cable news “analysis.”

      1. I’m not sure which news outlet is looking for analysis from the Tea Party guy that tried to stab Trump in the back.

        Nobody on the left is looking for that perspective.

        The treason perspective probably isn’t what Fox viewers are looking for either.

        1. that tried to stab Trump in the back.

          He dared to question Dear Leader, and for that he must be punished.

          1. actually he is speaking in tongues because none of what he is saying makes any sense unless you speak progressive

            1. Are you saying you can understand the psychotic word salad that comes out fo Trump’s weird little mouth?

              Maybe this whole thing is just a language barrier. English vs. psychotic moron.

              1. Tony
                May.28.2019 at 11:50 pm
                “Maybe this whole thing is just a language barrier. English vs. psychotic moron.”

                You’re right, scumbag. Try English instead of bullhshit.
                If you can.

                1. Gentlemen often become amorous or maudlin or vomit in public, but they never become truculent.

                  1. Where did you cut and paste that from Tony? I k ow for a fact you have no idea what any of those words mean.

                    Largely because you’re an ignorant, subnormal, banal, dull little piece of shot who needs to go drink his Drano.

          2. “He dared to question Dear Leader, and for that he must be punished.”

            You’d be considered less of a clown if you ever managed to read and respond to what was posted.

      2. He has nothing to worry about. He has a law degree. His family runs a very successful business. He and his brothers also own a company in China that supplies their tool business. He has plenty of money.

        It might be that he figures he has had enough of government and is just firing off his guns. Who knows. It may be that he figures he has nothing to lose so might as well speak his mind.

        In any case it is not that hard to get re-elected to Congress no matter what you say or do. Look at all of the fine examples who have been there for decades.

        1. Probably butt hurt over Chinese tariffs

  20. If there is no original crime, how can there be obstruction of investigating it?

    1. It’s even worse than that. What they’re complaining about would have to be attempted obstruction of investigating a non-crime.

      1. Even worse… he attempted obstruction of a non crime when he had the power to end it at any time.

        Even worse worse… you have to use novel interpretations of the law to reach the attempted obstruction.

        1. And he thought mean things about Mueller too! Obstruction!

  21. I suppose you have to give credit to Republicans for being able to lure enough religious and less-educated people into their tent on promises of forcing women and brown people to stay in their place, but getting the vast majority of libertarians to suck their tit at the expense of all their principles–and with a president with such obvious instability, mental illness, criminality, and a complete lack of libertarian impulses. Bravo. Slow clap. I hope all of you dickholes are proud of yourselves.

    1. As opposed to promising “free” shit we can’t afford and that they have no plans to fund? And calling racism and sexism and every other ism? And labeling anyone who disagrees with them uneducated, stupid? Using religious as an epitaph? Blaming all wrongs on those evil, less educated, working heterosexual men?

      1. You can dislike both parties you know. Like a libertarian.

        Or if you want to be seen as a person with at least a simian level of intelligence, you might even be able to fathom that Democrats’ flaws, even in your lackluster mind, are far less serious.

        As a libertarian you know that neither party will give you your pony. That doesn’t mean you can’t be disappointed in your preferred party for its complete abandonment of not only your principles, but theirs.

        1. Democratic flaws are far less serious? Really? The party that wants to infringe upon every aspect of my life, tell me what health insurance I can buy (or tell me I can’t buy any and must use the government system). Who wants to punish people for success. Who wants to limit where I can practice my religious beliefs. Who wants to limit or even eliminate my 2A rights and wants to regulate the internet, functionally limiting freedom of speech. Please provide any modicum of evidence that someone who believes in personal liberty and limited government could ever agree that the Democrats flaws are far less serious? And considering your well documented modus operandi of blindly repeating left wing talking points, you obvious total lack of self awareness, your rather obvious inability and anything more than shallow, peurile analysis, your reliance on emotion rather than empirical evidence and logic, it is rather amusing for you to label me of limited intellect. And is simian supposed to be an insult? Last I checked hominids are simians.

          1. Name one good thing Republicans have done for this country in 40 years.

            1. Name one good thing Democrats have done? Listing anything would be futile when debating with someone as intellectually dishonest and hyperpartisan as you, but because I must like futility I will. Deregulation. Criminal justice reform, tax simplification, albeit not even nearly enough, appointed judges who have upheld the 2A, modernize our military and bankrupted the Soviet Union, freeing hundreds of millions of people (Reagan). Slowed the lefts March to government supremacy in everyone’s life, albeit this last one was definitely a mixed bag, as the Republicans did assist with passing the Patriot Bill and a Republican did sign it.

        2. BTW you seemed to have missed the obvious sardonic nature of my post and failed to understand the thesis. So I will simplify it for you. The LP is never going to be a major player, partially because it is just as partisan as it accused Democrats and Republicans of being. It also tends to drive off any possible allies by being dogmatic in it’s approach to platform purity. It will never be able to take advantage of the fact that many Americans are sick of the two party system and would like a viable alternative. And I can guarantee I am a lot closer to the LP way of thinking then you ever will be. I have come to the conclusion that the party leadership does not wish to win or govern, they would rather complain and lecture others about their imperfections. They are ignoring the plank in their eyes while focusing on the speck in their neighbors eyes. It is one thing to talk but another thing to actually take action. The LP will always be a fringe that has little impact on the slowing our descent into authoritarianism (which you seem willing to embrace based upon your blind partisanship to probably the most authoritarian party that exists). You can deny this, and I am sure you will. You refuse to realize that almost every one of the planks of the progressive platform is granting the state more power and the cost of individual liberty. You will also claim not to be a die-hard Democrat, despite it being self evident that that is false. But it is very likely that you have so deluded yourself that you act believe you are independent and that your views are not shallow partisanship.

          1. Mea culpa. This was non-sequitor, and was not in response to the comment I believed it was. Though it is nonetheless true with the exception that the first two sentences.

        3. Yeah… Maybe 40 years ago one could almost argue Rs and Ds were comparably bad… HELL, maybe even 20 years ago. But that ship has sailed. As the Dems have gone full on with all their crazy commie economics and hatred of anybody that isn’t a freak, there just isn’t any comparison to be made anymore. The Rs are the one eyed king in the land of the blind at this point… But at least they have one eye.

          1. Because they shit on trannies?

            1. As I pointed out above, you are obsessed with creating caricatures of your political opponents. This demonstrates that you are incapable of debating on the merits, so to assuage your feelings of intellectual ineptness you instead reduce everything to a two dimensional pasquinade. Anything more complicated or esoteric seems to be beyond your comprehension. You are boringly predictable, and unoriginal. The sad thing is that I believe you actually are narcissistic enough that you don’t realize how much your responses reveal that you really are just a partisan simpleton, cultish in your devotion to the progressive cause and incapable of critical thinking or empathy to anyone who thinks differently then you.

            2. It may come as a surprise Tony, but I have tranny friends… I’ve known them for a decade plus. I’ve had gay friends since middle school. I don’t personally mind people like you. Gay guys are actually pretty damn fun to kick it with a lot of the time!

              But yeah, the tranny shit has gone from being reasonable, to being absurd. Men who think they’re women should not be competing in womens sports. And they shouldn’t be naked in locker rooms, unless it’s a private business that makes that decision.

              But mainly it’s because the Republicans don’t want to tax me to death, give my money to slackers, regulation the economy into oblivion, force me to accept any nonsense beliefs they decide I must accept, take away my guns… I could go on.

              The Rs aren’t awesome… But the Ds aren’t the party of Bill Clinton in 1996 anymore either. I would have disagreed with ol’ Slick Willy on plenty of policy positions, but he wasn’t batshit crazy.

    2. Tony
      May.28.2019 at 5:52 pm
      “[…]Bravo. Slow clap. I hope all of you dickholes are proud of yourselves.”

      Scumbag, your idiocy and dishonesty make a maggot proud it’s not you.

    3. Tony is worried Republicans are giving trump the same legal protections we all enjoy… and excused Democrats for not caring Obama was ordering assassinations of American citizens abroad without involving the judicial… hilarious.

      1. You wouldn’t give the first stringy shit if a Republican put an American Muslim terrorist on a kill list. You’re just being a partisan fuckhole while pretending to care about dead terrorists. That’s worse than anything I’ve done, you psychotic bitch.

        1. Tony
          May.28.2019 at 11:47 pm

          Lefty ignoramus rant.
          Fuck off and dies someplace where you won’t stink up the place; make the world a better and more intelligent place.
          And, no, I’m not joking; if your mommy had an abortion we would all be better off, shitstain.

          1. The last Shitlord does this better.

            Oh now I feel bad about hurting your feelings.

  22. If this donkey is so concerned by “When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of liberty—crumbles,” (what a beautiful pompous prose) why doesn’t he use his energy and taxpayer money on what was the basis of this investigation?
    Because a normal person (a normal person is a person who didn’t spend his best years in the army or studying law) has all the right to get upset when wrongly accused.

  23. What’s need is Duane Jones to help deal with this spreading TDS.

  24. …but the fact that so few Republicans have followed his lead in questioning Barr’s and Trump’s actions is both frustrating and completely typical.

    Now do Obama’s and and Hillary’s and Lynch’s and Comey’s actions ginning up a document in order to get FISA warrants to spy on private US citizens.

    1. Authoritarian gonna authoritarian.

    2. Now read news that isn’t shat out by rightwing propagandists.

  25. If “not fully capturing the context, nature and substance” of a report were a crime, this writer would be in the slammer along with the entire US news media.
    Fortunately it is not a crime, so can we talk about something else? This issue is so two weeks ago.

  26. 1. Make sure no one will ever vote for you again.
    2. Something something
    3. Profit!

  27. Q: What’s the difference between a Democrat and a Losertarian who pretends to be Republican?

    A: Nothing.

    Amash is full of manure, but because “Reason” is 24/7 ORANGE MAN BAD and for open borders, they’re going to plump this little weasel’s desperate screams for attention and a CNN contract.

  28. Amash is really beclowning himself. I hope he’s being paid very well.

    1. We certainly wouldn’t want any beclowning in federal officeholders.

  29. Well I’m not exactly sure what Amash’s motives are but I’d point out a few things. His first statements came in the form of a Friday Twitter bomb and today’s story appears on a Tuesday after a holiday weekend in both cases generating maximum media coverage. I doubt 98% of the population had ever heard of him 2 weeks ago but his face was on virtually every newsfeed that made it to my phone this morning. It also strikes me that a thoughtful consideration of this matter would include some recognition of the undisputed corrupt acts of the Obama administration in instigating this entire fiasco. Instead Amash simply regurgitates Democrat talking points. It’s pretty clear that Reason and some prominent big Ls are hoping he’ll run as a Libertarian and considering the fact that he’s burned his bridges with the Republicans that may very well be what he’s got in mind. I’m not a member of the party but I’ve been contributing to their minuscule vote totals for decades so they can keep their spot on the ballot. But if they’re gonna give me Amash after Bill Weld I’m out probably for good. And I doubt I’m the only one who feels that way.

    1. They’ll give us Amash and insist on purity (by their definition). They will ridicule anyone who chooses not to vote for the LP. They will write sneering thought pieces about D and R voters expecting their party members to adhere to the party platform. And then in the same issue/day run pieces on how no true LP cannot support anything but full open borders and abortions offered in mini-malls with no regulations. They know this will never get them actually into office. But they don’t really want to be in office. They only want to be able to feel superior to everyone else while never actually accomplishing anything. We will also be treated to 6 months of how the election results (no matter the outcome) indicate we are on the cusp of the Libertarian Movement.

      1. The truth is that sane, right-libertarians need to take over the libertarian movement again… People like Ron Paul, and even Rand Paul.

        Left-libertarians have managed to take over almost every important libertarian publication, think tank, and the party… Yet in real life
        90% of the libertarians I meet are right-libertarians. Most people who “get” the whole libertarian thing simply don’t think gay wedding cakes and open borders are the most important thing in the world.

        If the Libertarian Party became the party of Ron Paul style libertarianism, AKA libertarianism with a few carve outs for real world sanity on some issues, it could replace the Republican party… As most Republicans are really just moderate libertarians, especially as the older SoCons die off.

        But they’re too caught up in retarded social policies that nobody really cares about… The bottom line is trying to court people from the authoritarian left to become libertarians has always been a losing battle, but courting limited government conservatives is doable. They’re just too stupid and feelz minded to get it.

        1. I tend to fall into the right libertarian mode myself, however, well I believe in pacifism when appropriate, I support that the best way to secure peace is to be the hardest motherfucker on the block in terms of military capabilities. And I also recognize that sometimes conflicts are unavoidable and sometimes national interest goes beyond our own borders. I am not a total devotee to the NAP, whole recognizing it’s inherent desirability.

        2. Once the march through the institutions takes an institution over, it’s usually easier to just start fresh than to recapture it. The left is pretty good at defending their takeovers.

  30. Just watched the oath of office (at the end of a 15-minute laugh riot of all those idiots claiming Trump will never be president).
    Nowhere in there was any statement regarding assisting an obviously false investigation into any claimed ties to another country, nor that he would do other than ‘preserve, defend and defend’ the Constitution.
    AFAICT, he has done exactly that, including his A5 constitutional right to avoid answering questions.

  31. TDS! TDS! TDS!

    What an idiot. He always struck me as kind toolish on a lot of stuff… But he just keeps getting worse and worse. Anybody who thinks a guy being pissed about having a witch hunt sent after him, and asking some questions about how to mitigate the nonsense, is worse than the deep state cooking up a false investigation for political reasons… Well, they’re kind of a moron.

    1. He’s an absolute asshole who is now betraying everyone in his party with made-up bullshit.

      His family is losing money on their China business?
      He’s getting primaried out?
      He’s just a self-aggrandizing prick looking for attention?
      He’s looking for a permanent home as a “libertarian” loser?

      Whatever the case, he’s now the kind of contrary asshole loser Reason just loves. He’ll never amount to anything now because he’s proven himself untrustworthy and unreliable. He’s placed so much more emphasis on getting attention and being a prick than achieving anything in his job as a legislator.

      1. Pretty much. Reason is trying to prop him up as being principled… But it’s really not. I dunno. There’s something in the way that it’s done that just comes off as attention seeking whiny bitch.

        Ron Paul went against the Republican congress and president almost ALL the time… But the way he did it wasn’t like a little girl seeking attention. I dunno. It’s in the subtleties I guess.

        1. Yep – Paul chooses his battles carefully and fights them with honor. Amash does the opposite

  32. It is now May 29th, Amash and his comments are already yesterday’s news.
    This libertarian agenda is going nowhere until there is a candidate with charisma to engage the public in such ideas. Amash is not it, Gary Johnson was not it. Do we have someone with some real energy for public speaking. If not this is doomed academic discussion.

  33. Yes Justin, a lot of people were misled, when the FBI fraudulently applied for a FISA warrant and lied and leaked stories to get it.

  34. Fun to see the “libertarians” here dismiss the most libertarian guy in Congress (who is right mind you) all for their dear leader Trump. Pathetic.

    1. Libertarians are like the coyotes here in Ohio.

      We have them. Not many. Spotted one once by the old railroad tracks recently. This year they say they are still around so keep an eye out if you have a small dog. Seen fewer rabbits last few years. Still they are not seen as a problem just know they are there.

      So I think after long time as libertarian, only recently posting here, what has happened is many are still there. Perhaps most just persist like the coyotes and avoid places like this.

      Libertarians do best if we stick to our principles.

      Always focus on the individual.

      Rant over.

  35. New Jersey Auto Accident Attorney provides information on the various types of claims for auto accident lawyer, as well as free advice from our expert attorney. Contact us today.

  36. […] obstruction, he would say so. He did not, and he has pointed out that he did not. This has caused many people to conclude that Mueller would have likely recommended obstruction charges against Trump were Trump […]

  37. […] obstruction, he would say so. He did not, and he has pointed out that he did not. This has caused many people to conclude that Mueller would have likely recommended obstruction charges against Trump were Trump […]

Comments are closed.