Justin Amash

Justin Amash Isn't Just Rebelling Against Trump. He's Fighting the Two-Party System.

The fed-up Michigan congressman just left the House Freedom Caucus he helped found.

|

Last night, Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) reportedly stepped down from the board of the House Freedom Caucus, which he helped found in 2015. 

The move follows a series of headline-making tweetstorms from Amash taking aim at both President Trump and his backers in Congress, in which Amash, relying on the findings in the Mueller report, argues that the president's conduct is impeachable, and that most Republicans are defending him out of little more than pure partisanship.

Amash's fellow Republicans, even those he is ostensibly close with, have generally not taken kindly to his stance, with the Freedom Caucus recently voting to condemn him for criticizing the president. Trump, meanwhile—never one to skip out on belittling a critic—has in recent weeks trashed Amash as "a total lightweight" and a "loser."

In general, the GOP's attitude toward Amash, the only congressional Republican who has affirmatively connected Trump's conduct with the notion of impeachment, has been dismissive and defensive. Republicans have tended to take Amash's arguments personally, as signs of pointed disloyalty. The job of a Republican, the GOP's responses have suggested, is to support other Republicans, which these days mostly means supporting Donald Trump and whatever it is he does. Amash was attacking Trump, and therefore had to be cut off.

You can certainly read Rep. Justin Amash's recent criticisms of President Trump and the vast majority of elected Republicans who back him as attacks against a president that Amash believes has failed the nation and the office—or on the GOP for its willingness to go along with the same—and you wouldn't be wrong to do so.

But it would be a mistake to assume that's all Amash is doing, or even that is it necessarily the most important aspect of his critique. Amash isn't just a NeverTrump pundit with a congressional office; his target is larger than Trump and the party stalwarts who back him. Rather, he is taking aim at the binary choices offered by the Republican/Democrat duopoly, the unthinking partisanship it seems to require, and the ways that partisanship has made Congress less willing to exercise its constitutional duties as a co-equal branch of government. Amash isn't just taking on Trump; he's making a systemic critique of the two-party system. 

Arguably the most important part of Amash's original Twitter thread came not from his initial conclusion that Trump's conduct was impeachable, but at the end, where he decried the general unwillingness of members of Congress to perform their constitutional duties when doing so would violate their partisan interests.

"Our system of checks and balances relies on each branch's jealously guarding its powers and upholding its duties under our Constitution," he wrote. "When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of liberty—crumbles." 

Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle made up their minds about Trump's actions without having read the Mueller report, Amash said, resting their conclusions solely on the basis of partisanship. As if on cue, a Republican primary challenger appeared in Amash's district who supported Trump, but amusingly admitted he hadn't read the report.

This wasn't just a narrow criticism of a president or the party that blindly supports him; it was a critique of reflexive partisanship and a system that works from the expectations that party affiliation is the most important (and, in many cases, the only) factor that matters in high-stakes political decisions. It was an institutional critique of a legislature that has lost its willingness to pay a co-equal role in the federal government, and, in the process, has failed both itself and the public it serves. 

That critique is one that can be extended beyond the bounds of impeachment, from the broken federal budget process to the reluctance that GOP lawmakers have displayed to check Trump's worst instincts on trade—even when Republican lawmakers are known to be opposed to his actions. What's at stake in these debates isn't just bad policy outcomes, but a kind of institutional degradation in which constitutional order breaks down. By choosing to prioritize partisanship, Amash was saying, Congress had chosen to be weak.

Implicit in this idea and in much of Amash's politics is a sense that the two-party system is failing to provide the range of choices that are now de rigueur in nearly every other area of life. Modern economies have become fragmented and personalized, offering people a vast array of choices about everything from diet to entertainment to sexual identity. But politics has largely been static, offering two basic choices—a default liberal and conservative option—that don't capture the variegated reality of individual political predispositions and outlooks. 

And there are signs, even beyond Amash, that the voting public, in the U.S. and elsewhere, yearns for more: Look at the recent elections in Europe, where Green won big in Germany, and Labour and Conservatives lost in the U.K. The biggest loser was centrist politics as usual. Or look at Bernie Sanders, who is carving out a kind of sub-party within the Democrats, and pulling the party his way in the process. Or look, even, at Donald Trump, who ran on the GOP ticket, and shares some tendencies with the Republican base, but isn't exactly a Washington Republican in the classic sense, and whose campaign and election, at least, were a result of frustration with the GOP in its most conventional form.

Complaints about the limited choices offered by the two-party system are as old as the two-party system. And it's generally true that first-past-the-post voting systems tend to result in two-party dynamics, meaning that third parties are inherently disadvantaged in the U.S. electoral system. But there's an alternative to the third (or fourth, or fifth) party dream, as attractive as it may be—and that's the politics of individuals and ad hoc, issue-based coalitions, a politics of principle rather than partisan loyalty above all. Amash is modeling that sort of politics.

That sort of politics doesn't typically sit well with the Red Team/Blue Team mentality that drives today's politics. It has been telling to see that the most consistent criticisms of Amash have amounted to arguments that he is aiding Democrats and seeking attention for his own political ambitions—as if the point of politics is not to advance the ideas you believe in or form useful coalitions to achieve those goals. (And if attention-grabbing tweets are now off-limits, Republicans may need to reconsider their feelings about Trump.)

But this form of idiosyncratic outsider politics, while not always successful, can nonetheless produce real results, reshaping a party from within, or forcing change upon it from the outside. While Amash may be making little impact on the Republican party itself, which is reflexively pro-Trump and likely to remain that way for the near future, he may be having an effect on those who see themselves as unrepresented by the two-party system as it is currently constituted. Over the last few weeks, voters who self-identify as independent have broken towards impeachment. The shift has pulled the entire nation towards impeachment, and it occurred at almost exactly the same time as Amash took his stand.

Amash closed his original tweetstorm with the idea that "America's institutions depend on officials to uphold both the rules and spirit of our constitutional system even when to do so is personally inconvenient or yields a politically unfavorable outcome. Our Constitution is brilliant and awesome; it deserves a government to match it." It was a call to place individual commitments over party power and to uphold a system of government that can offer more than two bad choices, but rarely does. Almost alone among Republicans, Amash seems up to this task.

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.

370 responses to “Justin Amash Isn't Just Rebelling Against Trump. He's Fighting the Two-Party System.

  1. Wow, Amash is still around?!

    Why?

    1. Gearing up to run in the Libertarian party.

    2. You don’t like him?

      1. He went against Trump. Apparently, that’s a big no-no here.

        To be clear, I don’t mean that people here shouldn’t disagree with his move. But to invalidate everything else that he has done right from a libertarian perspective because he went against Trump? Seems ridiculous to me.

        1. Amash made ludicrous claims.

          THAT’s a big no-no here.

          1. Practically every politician has made ludicrous claims about one thing or another. Sure, shoot down those claims. But why throw the baby out with the bathwater? It just seems like the issue of protecting Trump supersedes all else among some commenters here.

            1. ” But why throw the baby out with the bathwater?”

              Because ineffectual blowhard politicains who talk big and do little are a dime a dozen.

              1. Amash is a scumbag who co-owns MIT, a company which owns Tekton, which ILLEGALLY imports chinese products and claims they were made in the US. That is why he’s suddenly so vocal. This adoration of anyone who confronts Trump has to stop. The same idiots would have elected Avenatti.

          2. This whole thing is bigger than Amash. I think he’s drawing attention to the fact that politicians generally hide the fact that political power is more easily maintained with less competition and Amash is seemingly the only politician telling us the (obvious) truth.

          3. Trump makes ludicrous claims at all hours of the day.

            1. That’s different. Those are ludicrous claims they like.

            2. He makes claims you don’t agree with. A ash’s claims were just utter bullshit spewed as retaliation for Trump tariffing his shady Chinese company.

            3. Funny how these claims about what Trump says are never quoted in their full statement.

          4. Amash made ludicrous claims?!? What claims were so ludicrous, exactly? Are you talking about the claims against a sitting president who takes the cake in that dept?

            1. Probably the ridiculous obstruction claims.

              1. WHY DO YOU SAY MUELLER IS RIDICULOUS?
                From where did you get your law degree?

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s been acting ridiculous since birth.

        2. It’s more smash is supporting an IC investigation against a political enemy predicated on a non crime that is the issue. But you keep being you.

        3. Amash is a Globlalist for the Deep State Coup.

          That shouldn’t make him popular with libertarians.

          1. If Monster Mash-Head was a real Libertarian he would be outraged at what Obummy’s FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA & FISA Court did to get Trump! It is some of the worst crimes ever perpetrated by Govt. officials in this nation’s history,as they tried to make sure Clinton won & then after she lost they tried to foment a coup of a duly elected prez!..Monster Mash-Head can say he believes Trump should be impeached & one can make a case for that, although, I think it is a weak case, but I have yet to hear him say anything about the very high crimes of these supposedly impartial FED agencies!

            The Libertarian Party is in the toilet as witnessed by the horrible 2-headed monster they rolled out in 2016 for their presidential ticket; Gary Johnson & William Weld were basically just a tad better than a Lib/Commie/Prog-Tard!!!

            1. Or Amash would have at least submitted articles of impeachment against Trump himself.

              Until he does that, he’s just a preening windbag who, by his own stated standards, is betraying his oath to defend the Constitution.

                1. Articles of Impeachment don’t work that way.
                  Instead, Amash should amend the Constitution himself.
                  Then secede from the nation, just his own Congressional District, and declare himself a dictator for life.

                  1. Articles of impeachment start as a bill in the House.

                    Amash could submit the bill tomorrow if he had the stones for it.

                    1. Typical lying Trumpster

                      Or Amash would have at least submitted articles of impeachment against Trump himself.

                      Articles of Impeachment don’t work that way.

                      Amash could submit the bill tomorrow if he had the stones for it.

                      it’s not about stones. I just proved he’s smarter than you. And much more honest.

                      FEEL the tribalism-hatred!

                      (Does he know the Articles are totally different than a bill? Stay tuned!)

      2. I used to think highly of Amash. But the bottom line on Trump is: No crimes and no obstruction of justice.
        I didn’t even vote for Trump – but I like the results he’s getting. And I think there WAS obstruction – but not of justice. Trump obstructed a coup attempt and a witch hunt. Trump knew he wasn’t guilty – so why should he tolerate the lies launched at him? More, if his defense of himself against spurious charges is criminal – shouldn’t those who made the accusations get much stiffer penalties? This is a bit like prosecuting the guy who shoots someone who is attacking him with a knife… but letting the attacker walk free.
        No Russian Collusion? No crime.
        Prosecute Trump? Execute Hitlery, Obozo, Comey, Strzok, Page, Lynch, the Ohrs, Brennan, McCabe – and probably 50 others.
        As for Amash, there are easier ways to promote a change to the two-party system… like telling people what you want to do and why and arguing for your point.
        All he’s really accomplished is discrediting himself.

      3. “You don’t like him?”

        I don’t like politicians, generally speaking. In this case, it’s nothing personal. I just don’t understand why anybody’s paying attention to him.

        I think that this election may represent the biggest threat to libertarian communism since I don’t know when. Trump is terrible on free trade, but his vehement opposition to the Green New Deal makes up for all of that. If a Democrat from this field takes the White House, and Congress retains the status quo, the only thing standing between us and the Green New Deal will be principles and convictions of McConnell–someone who has proven to not be principled in the past.

        Yes, I think it’s imperative that the Republicans win the White House in 2020. Maybe if the Democrats blame their loss on the Green New Deal, we won’t have such a stark choice in 2024 and we can back to voting for candidates with hearts as pure as gold again. For the time being, however, we live in a system of single member districts, and vote for Amash is a vote for authoritarian communism by way of the Green New Deal.

        There isn’t anything principled and capitalist about voting against Trump when the alternative is authoritarian communism.

        1. “Libertarian communism?”

          WTF is that, exactly? The political equivalent of ‘jumbo shrimp?”

          1. I think he meant to say two different things that would have made the same point and mashed then together by accident.

          2. That’s a typo.

            “I think that this election may represent the biggest threat to libertarian communism [capitalism] since I don’t know when”

            —-Ken Shultz

        2. Pretty good argument. Just sayin

        3. “Trump is terrible on free trade”

          What Reason calls “free” trade is a set of foreign trade and domestic tax policies that benefits corporate ownership over labor.

          Why should domestic *labor* be taxed when purchased, but not foreign goods?

          Cui bono?

          If we followed Adam Smith’s logic, tariffs would be a lot higher than they are today.

          Adam Smith on tariffs to offset local taxes on production:

          “It will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign industry for the encouragement of domestic industry, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter. In this case, it seems reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former. This would not give the monopoly of the borne market to domestic industry, nor turn towards a particular employment a greater share of the stock and labour of the country, than what would naturally go to it. It would only hinder any part of what would naturally go to it from being turned away by the tax into a less natural direction, and would leave the competition between foreign and domestic industry, after the tax, as nearly as possible upon the same footing as before it.”

          1. What Reason calls “free” trade is a set of foreign trade and domestic tax policies that benefits corporate ownership over labor

            Bernie Sanders walks among us!
            “Corporate ownership” is mostly UNION PENSION FUNDS!!!!
            This is how the wacky left witlessly attacks WORKERS.

            Why should domestic *labor* be taxed when purchased, but not foreign goods?

            Labor is not taxed. Do you even know what a tariff is?

            Adam Smith does not say what you falsely assert.
            He says, “WHEN SOME TAX IS IMPOSED”
            No such tax is impose. (lol).

            Or …
            This Bernie Sanders supporter wants foreign corporations to pay our corporate income and FICA taxes … to help pay for his socialist paradise!

            And they VOTE!

            1. “Labor is not taxed”

              A man who has never seen a W-2.

              You know you’re over the target when the replies are insane delusions.

              I encourage those not in the grips of terminal cognitive dissonance to compare what I wrote to the delusions above so they can see what it looks like.

              1. THAT’S A TAX ON INCOME!!!!!

                You know you’re over the target when the replies are insane delusions

                THAT’S A TAX ON INCOME!!!!!

                And they VOTE.
                Even BREED.

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano remains deluded.

                  1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano remains deluded.The income tax is a tax on INCOME … not a tax on labor
                    FICA are taxes on INCOME … not taxes on labor.
                    Labor is not taxed in America
                    – The Deluded One

          2. SO … you say foreign countries should make our exporters pay THEIR foreign income and VAT taxes … to support THEIR social welfare policies … because Adam Smith said so!

            1. I said nothing about what foreign countries should do.

              Your meds need adjustment.

              1. NOW you say Adam Smith’s “principles” ONLY APPLY TO AMERICA
                We MUST do it .. but nobody else should … per Adam Smith!!!!
                ON TOP OF YOUR SOCIALISM.

                what Reason calls “free” trade is a set of foreign trade and domestic tax policies that benefits corporate ownership over labor

                Bernie Sanders walks among us!
                “Corporate ownership” is mostly UNION PENSION FUNDS!!!!
                This is how the wacky left witlessly attacks WORKERS.

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano quickly devolves to screeching his nonsense.

                  1. Adam Smith’s economic principles were NOT intended only for America … WHICH DID NOT THEN EXIST.
                    -The Dumbfuck Nonsense spewer

      1. I’m here to point out that support for Amash is terribly misplaced–even most so if your intentions are good.

    3. After not reading reason for a while I’m surprised to return and find that it’s become the home of the angry incels. To judge from this comment section the entire readership of Reason is people that hate Reason

      1. Amash committed political suicide regardless of whether I’m angry incel.

        Amash will fracture opposition to the Green New Deal and fracture opposition to Medicare for All if he runs against Trump–regardless of whether his intentions are good and regardless of whether I’m an angry incel.

        Our voting system works by way of single member districts and there are implications of that regardless of whether I’m an angry incel.

        I’ve been here at Reason.com since the place started circa 2003/2004, and ad hominem fallacies have always been an embarrassment to the people who perpetrate them–regardless of whether I’m an angry incel.

      2. Yes, having grown weary of 24/7 TDS makes everyone here angry incels.

        Maybe go back to not reading Reason.

      3. You still remember when Reason was libertarian.

        1. No one remembers when Dumbfuck Hihnsano made a coherent statement.

  2. Has Suderman been on the right side of any issue ever?

    1. Doubtful.

      The propagandists in the media think that sowing seeds of discontent in the GOP against Trump will work.

      It hasn’t worked in 2.5 years. In fact, if the media were not shits, they would remember that Trump was actually not popular among RINOs starting in 2017. Trump got more popular and Democrats and RINOs got less popular.

    2. Suderman opposed a baill cutting $772 billion from Medicaid–supposedly because of what the bill didn’t do.

      1. Suderman did that, likely because he’s libertarian.
        Libertarians defend the restoring of free market outcomes, which provided universal health care, regardless of age or income, provided through charity hospitals, financed by a variety of churches, charities, foundations and trusts.

        Sorry, that’s pro-liberty libertarians, who seek to restore free-market outcomes — which show that people have long supported, and willingly paid for, indigent healthcare. We don’t slash Medicaid — which leaves progressives as the only ones saying they’ll provide what people want, and are willing to pay for. We transition back to private charities and the like.

        That’s how free markets work, for those who understand them.

        Anti-government “libertarians” are actually authoritarian. The economic equivalent of the KKK. They say, “Fuck free markets. And fuck will of the people and consent of the governed.” Government is the equivalent of the faggots and niggers they also hate. (sarc)

        And that’s why progressives have been kicking our ass for a quarter century — in the court of public opinion — on virtually every issues … and have evolved a bastard libertarianism which has NO alternative policy proposals, not a one, on anything, They just sneer and ridicule “proggies” and “the left” — which is failing, unless you share their deep tribal cave.

        Like, they are blissfully unaware how Trumpcare made Obamacare more popular than ever! Think the mind control and Newspeak of Orwell’s 1984.

        Or that polls show SIX Democrats poll higher than Trump. “But the polls said Trump would lose in 2016.” He did lose the popular vote . 10 million voted against him. He set a record for “anti” votes — people voted against Hillary, not for him. And he won the Electoral College by a tiny 39,000 voters, in three state combined.

        How much influence did Russia Wikileaks and Comey NEED to sway 39,000 voters … in an electorate dominated by squirrels?

        And how in HELL has Trump already added more new 8-year debt than Obama did AFTER 8 years? How could the party of Reagan been the first ever to increase the annual deficit over 40% in one year, during a “booming economy,”

        And why has Labor Force Participation DECLINED under Trump? That’s people abandoning the labor force … worse than under what Obama left him.

        1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his silly Russia fever dreams.

          1. Authoritarian hates free markets. (yawn)

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

    1. Poor Lefties drying to deflect that Democrats ran plantations.

      That and Lefties like you love Child porn.

      1. PB certainly loves child porn. He showed off his web links here at a Reason.

        1. You have no shame at all …

    2. Go back to downloading child porn you degenerate.

    3. Article from the Examiner said Amash left months ago. Which makes this seem more like a “look at me” event prior to Amash attempting a run. Amash is basically acting like an attention whore.

      1. Amash is basically acting like an attention whore.

        In sharp contrast to Trump’s restrained dignity.

        1. So he’s as bad as Trump?

          You’re going with that?

          Ok, Amash is embarassing himself with Trumpian attention whoring and grandstanding.

          1. My point wasn’t about Amash, it was about Jesse.

            1. Your response had nothing to do with mine. It was an idiotic attempt at a strawman arguments.

        2. Where did I claim trump wasnt an attention whore? Got an intelligent comment?

          1. Oh, you’re too cute.

            1. So no intelligent response. I’ve noticed your habit of strawman murder. Try arguing against arguments you are responding to.

      2. Do you have a source more reliable than the Examiner?
        On that won’t humiliate you? (not Infowars, Breitbart, Storm Front, PJ Media, etc )

    4. Are we supposed to believe that Sarah Palin’s Buttplug is a supporter of Justin Amash now?

      If Shrike is a supporter of Justin Amash now, did he oppose Amash before when he was a Tea Party favorite–like Sarah Palin?

      1. Of course it is a fan. Anything that furthers authoritarianism. Amash fits the bill.

  4. “”relying on the findings in the Mueller report, argues that the president’s conduct is impeachable,””

    Sure obstruction is impeachable. Ask Bill Clinton. Is it something worthy of removing a sitting president? Ask any democrat that was in the Senate in 1998.

    This is why the dems has someone from Nixon’s days come to congress. Clinton’s impeachment is much more relative to Trump’s situation than Trump to Nixon. But referring to Clinton’s impeachment brings up some issues for the dems they would prefer to ignore.

    1. How did Trump obstruct justice?

      1. Here is a small sample of the times Trump obstructed justice:

        Trump told then FBI Director James Comey, “I need loyalty. I expect loyalty.”
        Trump asked Comey to abandon the Russia investigation and let Michael Flynn go.
        Trump ordered White House Counsel Don McGahn to stop Attorney General Jeff Sessions from recusing himself in the Russia investigation.
        Trump asked Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and Director of the National Security Agency Michael Rogers to publicly deny there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians.
        Trump fired Comey, explaining that he said to himself, “you know, this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia, is a made-up story.”
        Trump tried to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller

        https://www.needtoimpeach.com/corruption/trump-obstructs-justice/

        1. Poor child porn guy. He is just one link away from getting banned again.

          1. Never been banned, you pathetic liar and Trump cocksucker.

            1. It’s outrageous these people won’t believe your totally credible story about a lost, then recovered, password.

            2. I have a link to you admitting you were banned. You posted it from one of your sockpuppets. Which only adds to your credibility. Seeing as how you constantly lied about usong sockpuppets.

              You have since made up an incredibly stupid story, which everyone laughs at you for, and no one, not even you, finds credible.

              1. I have a link to you admitting you were banned

                POST IT!

            3. Buttplugger and his Hillary cock sucking ways.

        2. None of those are obstruction of Justice. You are a nitwit

          LOL @ asking intel chief’s to state an (obvious) true fact = “obstruction”
          Double LOL @ “tried to fire”

          1. Every president wants and needs loyalty. Obstruction!!!

            1. Oath of office.

          2. Declaring your innocence while innocent is obstruction you heathen.

            1. So is any use of the anything in the 5th amendment.

        3. Everyone accused looks guilty if you only listen to the prosecutor.

          Why should I expect Trump to be removed from office for obstruction when Clinton was not for the same charge?

          1. So, you now AGREE that Trump should be impeached!!!

            (Does he know Clinton was impeached? Stay tuned)

        4. If that’s obstruction then you’re gonna need a bigger boat to go after a lot of politicians.

          Also. There was no crime. Ever.

          Trump, if anything, comes out looking pretty clean. The very fact the preposterous phrase ‘we couldn’t prove his innocence’ was invented should make any sane and skeptical mind angry.

          1. “Trump, if anything, comes out looking pretty clean.”

            Ignorant, partisan, bigoted authoritarians serving as obsequious Republican lapdogs are among my favorite faux libertarians.

            Carry on, clingers.

            1. I can’t believe you’re still so butthurt about losing.

              1. Stomping the preferences of uneducated, bigoted, right-wing malcontents has been the most enjoyable part of winning the culture war. Open wider, clinger.

                1. That’s all you got – hurling a bunch of names at people?

                  Pathetic.

          2. The exact wording from Horse-Face Mueller was, “We could not say with complete confidence that clearly no crime was committed”…Isn’t that the same as saying, “We could not say with complete confidence that clearly a crime was committed.”?

            Yes, DOJ guidelines say an Independent Investigation should not indict a sitting president, but it does not preclude the Special Investigator from clearly making his opinions & conclusions known, like for example saying, “DOJ Guidelines prevent me from indicting Trump, but the evidence shows he clearly committed obstruction & he should be impeached by Congress for it!”…That is exactly what Ken Starr did with Clinton, he did not indict him, but issued a report that said he was guilty 11 times, including obstruction!…The fact that Mueller handled it the way he did shows the evidence against Trump is weak!

            1. It’s not quite the same. “We couldn’t find exculpating evidence for a crime that generally doesn’t have exculpating evidence,” is not the same as, “We couldn’t find inculpating evidence for a crime that doesn’t generally have exculpating evidence.”

              Not being able to say with complete confidence that there wasn’t a criminal conspiracy is the same as saying, “There might be evidence that remains hidden, because hiding evidence is what conspiracists try to do. So we can’t say that there isn’t hidden evidence that we haven’t found. But we didn’t find any inculpating evidence, which is what we’d need to say definitively that a crime occurred.”

          3. Shriek isn’t sane or skeptical.

          4. No, it’s not true that the universe disappears if you close you eyes and scream, “NO, NO , NO, NO …”

            Also. There was no crime. Ever.

            READ THE REPORT! (sigh). PLUS, he’s a (yet) unindicted co-conspirator in campaign finance violations. That will likely be his first trial after leaving office, of 14 continuing federal investigations and at least six state and local ones.

            He’s already the first President forced to pay a $25 million settlement for fraud, while in office. That was not federal, and the many other vultures are still circling. Go beyond Fox and become informed — if only for an hour a week.

        5. You really are an idiot if you believe anything you listed is a crime.

        6. Trump should have done more.

          It’s his obligation to stop Deep State Coups. Trump *knew* he didn’t collude with Russia, as confirmed by Mueller. The whole investigation was based on fraud and crime, robbing America of control of the federal government by the man they elected President for 2 years.

          It was a coup.
          #VoteWoodchipper

        7. None of this is obstruction.
          They do not meet the elements required for obstruction, plus the actor who did these things retains presumptive legal privilege to do them, unless some corrupt bad faith can be facially shown.

      2. I didn’t say he did.

        The dems think he did, and can impeach if they get the votes.

        Since the house is the one that actually do the indicting, how easy is it to get an indictment for obstruction? Ham sandwich not withstanding.

        1. In the entire history of the US, only two bills of impeachment have been issued by the US House against the president. So, not very easy.

          Note: Neither issued bill of impeachment resulted in a conviction in the Senate. Are the House Democrats deliberately shooting for 0-3?

          Nixon is NOT one of the impeached Presidents.

          1. “”Nixon is NOT one of the impeached Presidents.””

            Correct. Which why I find it funny that the dems parade someone from the Nixon era when we have an actual example of impeachment for obstruction in 1998. Why not talk about that one instead of Nixon?

            1. Simple: it interferes with The Narrative.

            2. OTOH, Nixon resigned ahead of the impeachment hearings reaching a conclusion that seemed certain. If he had remained in office, he would have been impeached in the House and tried in the Senate – and whether or not the Senate reached a 2/3 majority, would have become the _only_ President to have at least one Senator of his own party (Barry Goldwater) voting to convict.

              1. What Goldwater, and others, told Nixon, when they suggested he resign, was that there were enough votes to convict.

                The investigations had caused a total flip in public support FOR conviction — the same effect which has already begun.

                Today, an official government watchdog has said that Kellyanne Conway must be immediately terminated … for violating the Hatch Act, which forbids her from partisan political activity … like joining Trump’s totalitarian attack on Democrat candidates (an abuse of power).

                But Trump is AGAIN in open defiance of written law, here … MORE proof that his administration is a criminal enterprise — which WILL force today’s GOP into supporting impeachment.

                GUARANTEED.

                (Trump also just sold ANOTHER mansion to a foreign despot … at a 100% markup … originally purchased for cash … from Deutsche Bank … a convicted launderer of Russian money … a bank FULLY cooperating with one of 14 ongoing criminal investigations, mostly in the Southern District of New York … as handed of by the ever-crafty Mueller. (lol)

                Sorry. no amount of “FUCK OFFs” can change hard, cold facts.
                LOCK HIM UP (sneer)

          2. Umm, Nixon resigned the most powerful job on the planet … because he KNEW he’d win on impeachment!

            Can pigs fly?

    2. Sure obstruction is impeachable

      Glad you finally saw the light.

  5. I wonder if the Reason staff like Justin Amash?

    1. Seems like they should, he’s about as good as it gets in Congress for libertarians.

      Trump may be significantly better than Clinton or any of the Dem challengers from a libertarian perspective, but he’s not really very close to the libertarian ideal.

      1. Neither were Gary Johnson & William Weld in 2016 anywhere close to the Libertarian ideal!…..The LP ticket in 2020 will probably be even worse!

        1. How would you know?

          FACT CHECK: 2016 election.
          1.Voters were open to even radical change.

          2.Over 60% of voters self-identify with libertarian values, fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

          3.Ours were the only candidates campaigning on those values … the only candidates with proven success in running an Executive Branch … in states controlled by an opposing party. (non-divisive)

          4.Both major opponents were (and are) distrusted by a majority of Americans.

          5.I’m not religious, but if we prayed for a perfect election, God would have delivered 2016 … but (He being God) would know we were not ready … without no policy solutions … nothing to advance America’s shared values.

          6.Ideal candidates, in a perfect election, got 3.3% of the vote … which we’re told was a major advance for liberty!

          All of America was FUCKED by the libertarian establishment … because the current anti-government mentality has NO policy proposals … for ANYTHING … at a time voters were ready for even radical reforms … we had NO solutions.

          Don’t blame the candidates when the entire libertarian establishment has NO policy solutions … CANNOT shop how liberty can do ANYTHING better than is being done now.

          It’s now a cult, Like the Moonies, Davidians and Jim Jones’ People’s Temple.

          Two major parties, both authoritarian, socialists vs fascists.
          Liberty voiceless.

    2. Globalists for Deep State Coups gotta stick together!

    3. Amash is my Representative in Congress. In the 47 years I have been a voter, he is the first to even come close to really representing me – that is, the first that wasn’t in opposition to me on more than 75% of the issues.

      We disagree on abortion. He’s wrong about Trump – perhaps technically correct about obstruction, but blind to the fact that Trump is probably the only VIP in Washington (other than himself and a handful of other principled men in Congress) that could be investigated so thoroughly and come up only with such petty crimes. Amash matches my views over 75% of the time, and in a government full of unprincipled power-seekers, that is WONDERFUL.

      1. Obstruction of justice is NOT a petty crime, Trumpster.
        What Goldwater told Nixon, which forced his resignation, was that the Senate had enough votes to convict. Goldwater was selected, presumably the most likely to be believed by the psychotic Nixon. Nixon investigations had caused a total flip in public support FOR conviction — the same effect which has already begun for Trump, and can only increase.

        Here’s more.
        An official government watchdog has concluded that KellyAnne Conway must be immediately terminated … for violating the Hatch Act, which forbids her from partisan political activity … like joining Trump’s totalitarian attack on Democrat candidates (an abuse of power).

        But Trump is (for now) AGAIN in open defiance of written law … MORE proof that his administration is a criminal enterprise — which WILL force today’s GOP into supporting impeachment. GUARANTEED.

        (Trump also just sold ANOTHER mansion to a foreign despot … at a 100% markup … originally purchased for cash … from Deutsche Bank … a convicted launderer of Russian money … a bank FULLY cooperating with one of 14 ongoing criminal investigations, mostly in the Southern District of New York … as handed of by the ever-crafty Mueller. (lol)

        Sorry. no amount of raging “FUCK OFFs,” and other assaults by brainwashed puppets can change objective reality. For the same reason it failed for Nixon.

        LOCK HIM UP

  6. He’s so dreamy….

  7. And there’s no better way to fight the two-party system then taking head on an interloping outsider who stood atop the dead carcass of one party to defeat the other in a totally foreseeable conclusion to American politics.

    1. Seriously. The truly funny thing are all these ‘smash the two-party system’ libertarians creaming over Justin Amash and his establishment-friendly impeachment fanfic.

      Meanwhile we have an outsider president who’s done more to ACTUALLY smash the two-party system than any other political figure in modern history.

      These people are either poseurs who just want MSM/establishment approval or jealous narcissists angry they could never accomplish what Trump did.

  8. Amash did not make a substantive case that Trump committed an impeachable offense, he made a nonspecific assertion. He did this in the forum least given to thoughtful consideration. At the very least, in presentation, Amash appears to be engaging in moral preening. Amash has not made a compelling argument that his assertions are correct while insulting his colleagues for not agreeing with him. His strategy for persuading them to his position appears flawed, to put it kindly.

    Democratic forms of government require allies for you to get something done. Allies who will not agree with you on everything, may not agree with you on much order to get a majority or a supermajority. That means not sp et ending your political capital on futile gestures.

    1. Slack-jawed, bigoted, stale-thinking authoritarians who see Donald Trump as an ally are among my favorite faux libertarians.

      1. They’re also running your life.

        Cry more.

      2. Your frustrated rage at having your dreams of destroying America thwarted by Trump and the Deplorables adds spice to my day.

        Keep it coming.

      3. Tears of a fascist like you, Kirkland, are like nectar.

      4. You know what’s funny?
        Mickey wasn’t talking about Trump being an ally, but you’re such a bigoted piece of shit moron that you can’t even recognize that.

        1. You know what’s funny?

          Your non-stop hissy fits =- all fuckups!

          Mickey wasn’t talking about Trump being an ally, but you’re such a bigoted piece of shit moron that you can’t even recognize that.

          Mickey defended Trump, which makes Trump his ally!

          you’re such a bigoted piece of shit moron

          (smirk) He knows what an ally is, and was able to grasp the proof.

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano throws hissy fits while claiming others throw hissy fits.

          2. Someone’s butthurt because they’re so wrong and so no one will ever defend them.

            1. Anyone else confused on the difference between a supported argument ,… and WHINING by the LOSERS?

              ONE MORE TIME: DEFENDING SOMEONE FROM AN OPPONENT MAKES YOU AN …. ALLY …. ALLY …. ALLY … of who you are defending.

              (posted in defense of multiple aggressions by cyber-stalkers)

    2. Amash did not make a substantive case that Trump committed an impeachable offense,

      Thats what Mueller did. Amash agreed.

      What are your qualifications to challenge Mueller? Especially since you’re unaware of his two-year investigation.

      1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks he understands what Mueller said.

        1. Challenge me specifically, coward. Name an issue. State your position.

          1. COWARDLY BULLY: proven.

  9. […] the essence of his conflict with them compel him to leave the GOP too? If his rebuke of Trump is a facet of his discontent with the two-party system then it’s the logical next step. And the wider Republican caucus isn’t much less Trumpist than […]

  10. Justin Amash should be burnt at the stake for his blasphemous comments concerning Our Lord and Savior Donald J Trump. (The J stands for Jesus.)

    1. God you are pathetic on this issue. Keep agreeing with a prosecution of a non crime. Authoritarians around the world nod in agreement with you.

      1. None are so blind as those who blindfold themselves.
        Plus keep their eyes closed.
        And their ears covered.

  11. Washington (CNN)House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler said Monday that he has struck a deal with the Justice Department to begin providing Congress with some documents from the Mueller report related to obstruction of justice, putting off a looming court showdown between House Democrats and Justice over the report.

    The court fight to enforce a subpoena to Attorney General William Barr is no longer necessary — at least for the time being — as a result of the agreement the committee struck with the Justice Department, Nadler said. Details about which documents would be provided to the committee were not disclosed, but the New York Democrat said the agreement would allow all Judiciary Committee members to see “Robert Mueller’s most important files … providing us with key evidence that the Special Counsel used to assess whether the President and others obstructed justice or were engaged in other misconduct.”

    Rope tightening up on the Con Man

    1. That’s too bad. We haven’t had an AG in contempt of congress since Obama was president.

      1. Whataboutism is for LOSERS

    2. The walls are closing in. It’s the beginning of the end.

      1. By the way Mr. Buttplug, it’s good to see you joining the right side of history on impeachment. I recall weeks ago you said you wouldn’t sign the MoveOn petition because Drumpf would lose in 2020 anyway.

        #Impeach
        #Resist

    3. Lol. You have the logic and critical thinking skill of a pedophile.

      1. That’s probably why he got banned for posting kiddie porn.

    4. More pedo talk from Buttplugger.

  12. […] the essence of his conflict with them compel him to leave the GOP too? If his rebuke of Trump is a facet of his discontent with the two-party system then it’s the logical next step. And the wider Republican caucus isn’t much less Trumpist than […]

  13. I think Amash is just playing the same political game others are playing by claiming Trump obstructed without giving direct proof other than I read some words in a report, which is not proof. Therefore I don’t like him and he has not set himself apart from any of the other cretin politians or either party they belong to and claiming such does not make him any more libertarian than any of the others either.

    1. You need to go beyond Fox. Would you also piss on a few words from … the Bible … the Constitution? And how much proof do you have on … Hillary. I forget where I got this:
      ===
      Donald Junior KNOWINGLY conspired with the Russian government, KNOWING the Russian government wanted to help his dad win … PROOF as released to the public by ….. wait for it …. DONALD JUNIOR!

      Email to Don Jr.
      “The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

      “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin”.
      Source: Donald Trump Jr’s own Twitter feed!!!

      LOCK THEM UP!

      1. Mueller cleared Trump on collusion.

        Getting documents from a foreign source to use against a campaign isn’t a crime. If so, the product of a crime was used in FISA court warrant application.

        1. Mueller cleared Trump on collusion.

          Read it YOURSELF. Wrong. He said there was insufficient evidence, which means “beyond a reasonable doubt.” And also that a President cannot be indicted, And almost all the redactions are in that part of Mueller’s report.

          And i proved MY point.

          Getting documents from a foreign source to use against a campaign isn’t a crime.

          Wrong again. It’s conspiracy, if sufficient evidence is found. For example, Donald Jr. was clearly conspiring with Russia … to plan a meeting … which Trump Sr. lied about its purpose … which I also just proved

          Also no evidence for your FISA claim. Plus, a candidate did not do it. The entire GPS report was launched by Republicans opposed to Trump’s nomination. When he got it, they sold it to Hillary, for the same purpose.

          Are you aware the dossier is only part of a larger report … and had NOTHING to do with launching the investigation 8 months earlier?

          1. Did he (Vic) defend seeking illicit data, from a foreign major adversary, to influence an American Presidency?

            1. I will. If the data exists, why are you pretending that the source means anything.

              You’re literally saying you’d ignore disqualifying information if it came from a very super scary “foreign major adversary”

              Your entire argument is stupid.

              1. Already answered.

                Your entire argument is stupid.

                I can read!

                Repeat:
                Did you defend seeking illicit data, from a foreign major adversary, to influence an American Presidency?

                1. “Already answered.”

                  Yes, your position is clear, you’d ignore disqualifying information if it came from a very super scary “foreign major adversary” for no articlated reason.

                  And that makes your entire arguement stupid, Hihn.

                  1. Sorry, you lose again. THIS proof is Cornell School of Law
                    https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

                    ALL foreign support in our elections — cash or activity — to influence the results is illegal.

                    But YOU say
                    1) All those Russians were indicted for NON-crimes
                    2) If a candidate knows about the foreign crime … WHOOSH … it becomes legal.

                    Oh

                    1. When did the supreme court move from d.c. to cornell?

                    2. When did the supreme court move from d.c. to cornell?

                      Do you know how Cornell School of Law ranks in this, as an authority? MUCH higher than you do, since you have no source at all.

                    3. Dumbfuck Hihnsano back to bold-texting his stupidity.

                    4. ALL foreign support in our elections — cash or activity — to influence the results is illegal.

                      The editorial page of The Times of London and BBC broadcasts are illegal!

                      Who knew!!

                    5. The editorial page of The Times of London and BBC broadcasts are illegal!
                      Who knew!!

                      British citizens vote in the United States!
                      Who knew?
                      Only Trumptards knew.

            2. “”Did he (Vic) defend seeking illicit data, from a foreign major adversary, to influence an American Presidency?””‘

              No. Don jr. received no data. At best, he thought he could get some info. Clinton did get info. What’s a bigger crime, conspiracy to commit, or actually committing the crime?

              1. ”Did he (Vic) defend seeking illicit data, from a foreign major adversary, to influence an American Presidency?””‘

                No. Don jr. received no data. At best, he thought he could get some info.

                Does seeking something mean hoping to get some?

                Clinton did not conspire. She hired GPS — for the data they had obtained against Trump in the primaries, paid by a Republican anti-Trumper. When Trump got the nomination, GPS then sought to sell the anti-Trump data to the only possible customer.

                I proved my claim. You repeat memorized soundbites from the political elites, on things you know nothing about, …. Then deny what I said … while admitting what I said!

                Puppets on a string.
                Trump’s core base.
                My work here is done

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano found another ghost email account to post one of his sockpuppets.

                  1. Umm, THIS proof is Cornell School of Law
                    https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

                    ALL foreign support in our elections — cash or activity — to influence the results — is illegal.

                    But YOU say
                    1) All those Russians were indicted for NON-crimes
                    2) If a candidate knows about the foreign crime … WHOOSH … it becomes legal!

                    Oh

                    1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano posts random links to support his lunacy.

            3. Dumbfuck Hihnsano responding to his own sockpuppet again.

              1. Hihn has been assembling numerous socks for weeks now.

                It was time to swarm.

          2. You proved nothing.

              1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks his lunatic ravings constitute proof.

          3. ” He said there was insufficient evidence, which means “beyond a reasonable doubt.” ”

            Which is the standard for “cleared” in America, Hihn.

            Now fuck off.

            1. Which is the standard for “cleared” in America.

              Only if you lie about what he said. With the proof clearly visible!

              Wrong. He said there was insufficient evidence, which means “beyond a reasonable doubt.” And also that a President cannot be indicted, And almost all the redactions are in that part of Mueller’s report.

              1. Actually, the standard for cleared is what it is and has nothing to do with what anyone in the saga said.

                1. The only thing “said” was by you. A proven lie. And you are not in the saga.

          4. Semi coherent idiocy.

            You ask to prove innocence instead of guilt.

            You ignore we know for a fact Clinton paid Steele who paid Russians but imply don jr was in the wrong.

            What an idiot.

            1. Whataboutism is not a defense. They were both in the wrong. And only tribal puppets pick either side.

          5. You left out your traditional all caps insults.

          6. “He said there was insufficient evidence”

            Normal people would acknowledge that innocent until proven guilty is the basis of our legal system and thereby admit this means Trump is innocent.

            But you’re not a normal person, are you Hihn?

            1. That has nothing to do with obstruction.

              1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s obstruction is his head in his colon.

        2. Mueller cleared Trump on collusion.

          Another lie. That’s like saying he was cleared of eating french fries. (lol)
          Collusion is nor a crime, so was never investigated, Mueller Report, Page 10

          … the Office recognized that the word “collud[ e ]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law.

      2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s arguments here are as poor as the ones he uses to make for gun control.

      3. Hihn’s BACK!

    2. playing by claiming Trump obstructed without giving direct proof other than I read some words in a report, which is not proof

      How else to convey proof?
      Chiseled into concrete?
      Skywriting?
      Chanting with graphics?

  14. He may not know it yet, but he must also rebel against the libertarian establishment. If he runs under the LP, he’d be crippled the same waHe’s a Nolan libertarian — pro-liberty (and pro-people) — not anti-government. They are not the same, and often polar opposites (see Meeicaid)

          1. Do guys like you ever tire of complying obsequiously with the rules established by your betters, clinger?

  15. –OOPS

    He may not know it yet, but he must also rebel against the libertarian establishment. If he runs under the LP, he’d be crippled the same way that Johnson/Weld was … no policy solutions, on anything in today’s movement and party, at a time when voters are open to even radical reforms.

    He’s a Nolan libertarian — pro-liberty (and pro-people) — not anti-government. They are not the same, and often polar opposites (see Medicaid)

      1. ANOTHER failure to name a single policy position.
        Nolanlib has hit a grand slam!

          1. It’s funny that he uses another handle to compliment his other handle.

            1. ANOTHER FAILURE!!!
              KEEP PROViNG US CORRECT!!!

              1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano knows about failures because he sees them in the mirror all the time.

                1. I know you’re PISSED because you cannot prove him wrong, cannot name a single policy position.

                  So YOUR failure is visible to all the world.

                  (Watch him fail again!)

                  1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano is still assmad that I got his previous sockpuppets and original handle banned.

                    1. (Watch him fail again!

                      For the win.

                    2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks getting owned like Kunta Kinte is a win.

              2. Ah, there are the Hihn caps. He just couldn’t help himself.

                1. I appreciate that he acknowledged his schizophrenia and referred to himself as “us”.

                  1. Two more FAILURES to name a single policy position
                    (smirk)

                    1. Policy discussions is something rational adults engage in among them selves.

                      You are a senile troll, Hihn, not a rational adult. All we do with you is to tell you to f*ck off.

                    2. Policy proposals are irrelevant for a candidate!!!
                      So libertarians don’t have any policies, not a single one, because we don’t have to show voters that liberty works better!

                      This is WHY the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians! (Cato survey)

                      no policy solutions, on anything in today’s movement

                      Policy discussion

                      The defense rests
                      And walks away laughing!

                    3. Dumbfuck Hihnsano admits why he never won an election.

                  2. smirk

                    and referred to himself as “us”.

                    READ THE THREAD!

                    There are two “us” ridiculing your TOTAL FAILURE to list even ONE policy proposal. Hissy fits by
                    *bignose FAILED
                    *Tricky Vic FAILED
                    *Red Rocks White Privilege THREE FAILS
                    *JW FAILED
                    *DesigNate FAILED

                    FIVE of you and NONE can name a single policy proposal by the entire libertarian establishment …. WHICH IS ALSO NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, BEING ON THE ALT-RIGHT.

                    1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano bold-texts his hissy fits like the worthless, unloved little bitch that he is. That’s why he’ll die alone, unloved, and unmourned.

  16. Now that GDP is slinking back down to 1% if is hilarious that the wingnut talking point of Obama never hitting 3% for a year will apply to the Con Man as well.

    1. politics is war, war is peace, truth is what I say; now bow down to your big mummy goober mint.

  17. Fuck the federal government, which would be the envy of the USSR, with all its rules, and regulations, and taxing, fees, fines, and paper work devised by eggheads who graduated with a degree in government.

    This, of course, was mostly brought on by Woodrow Wilson, the progressive god who got the USA involved in WWI, a war that had nothing to do with America.

    To force men to fight in his war of choice, Wilson started a military draft. And to pay for it, he started a federal income tax.

    All Hail Woodrow Wilson, the progressive god and all around war monger, bean counter, and busy body.

    1. I will assume you paste that in often, anywhere, even when it has no relevance to the issue at hand.

      1. Actually, the bloated beast is the issue at hand.

        1. It’s about Trump and impeachment.
          And its seems you also paste that in often, also if it has no relevance to the issue at hand.

          BUT you address another issue on this page. The total lack of any policy proposals to deal with that bloat, from the entire libertarian establishment. And there is a very simple example.

          The conflict dates to the movement’s beginning. Pro-liberty vs anti-government. They are not the same, and often exact opposites See Medicaid.

          I’ll add that expanding liberty always limits or expands government. But shrinking government can reduce liberty. Again. Medicaid.

          In a free market, before Medicaid, Americans willingly paid for indigent health care, via charity hospitals, financed by a complex, independent network of churches, charities and foundations. It had been evolving since the 1500’s in Europe, and provided 100% treatment, regardless of income or age.

          30 years ago, we had several proposed methods for transitioning back to private. Transition because the entire private “charity” infrastructure must re rebuild.

          Today, Medicaid already fails to provide universal coverage to its eligibles. Cutting the funding moves FURTHER away from free-market outcomes.

          Do the math. If progressives claim to provide the ONLY level of care that people have ALWAYS paid for willingly … who wins? They’ve been kicking our ass for decades. Trumpcare made Obamcare more popular than ever, because voters saw that fiscal conservatives had … nothing, no policy proposals at all, Not any more.

          That’s not directly related to the overall bloat but it’s the easiest example how how anti-government has destroyed this movement. Johnson/Weld COULD have won in 2016. People are desperate. They were the only qualified executives, and the only candidates who matched the values of most Americans — fiscally conservative and socially liberal. And their governorships succeeded in Democrats stats — non-divisive.

          With all that, 2016 was a massive, crushing repudiation of anti-government libertarianism. Remember, it was you who changed the subject.

          1. Many people would not worry about Trump if he didn’t have such awesome power made possible by the progTards

            Also, I do not copy and paste but write from my heart.

          2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s posting his hobby-horses.

          3. Well, you certainly make me wish we had gotten rid of Medicare decades ago, Hihn.

            1. Authoritarian dictator proves my point. PISSES on free market outcomes.

              SEIG HEIL!

              1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks his Medicare and Social Security checks are free market outcomes.

                1. PROVE IT PSYCHO-BULLY

                  Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks his Medicare and Social Security checks are free market outcomes.

                  PUT UP OR SHUT UP, THUG

                  (Again posted in defense of repeated aggression by a cyber-bully stalking me down the page.)

                  DO A PAGE SEARCH FOR HIS HANDLE. THIS SICK FUCK LOGS IN FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF INFANTILE PERSONAL ATTACKS..
                  THE AUTHORITARIAN RIGHT, AS ENABLED BY TRUMP.

                  DO THE SEARCH. BELIEVE YOUR OWN EYES.

    2. Wilson didn’t start a federal income tax; it was supported by both parties, well before Wilson became president. I agree that he was horrifically terrible, though.

        1. Umm, your link proves you wrong, and it technically irrelevant to his point.

          All it says is that it HAPPENED during Wilson’s term.

          And it says what you disagree with … at the very top! (my emphasis)

          At almost every session Congress has made some effort, more or less determined, towards changing the revenue system in some essential portion; and that system has never escaped radical alteration for ten years together.

          1. I guess I’m reading it different.

            The World War that broke out in September 1914, but which the U.S. did not enter until 1917, would eventually cost the U.S. $50 billion, and federal spending from 1916 to 1918 would rise from $742 million to $14 billion. The war would bring the income tax into central play for the first time.

            1. Now you disagree with your own source.

            2. “would eventually cost the U.S. $50 billion”

              So why are you railing against Wilson? He wasn’t the beneficiary of a 50 billion bonanza. He was an invalid for the last years of his term, wasn’t he?

  18. A House Freedom Caucus without Justin Amash is like a baseball Hall of Fame without Pete Rose…..

    1. Amen.
      But they’ve strayed too far from their founding mission.

        1. Because your head is still up your ass.

          1. Saying Shreek smells like shit is surprisingly coherent for you Hihn.

            1. Now he ADMITS his head is up his ass!!!

              1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s head’s been up his ass for most of his worthless existence.

  19. Here’s hoping he practices what he preaches, teams up with Dems, and gets this fraudulent criminal impeached by the House.

  20. The hero worship of Amash by the reason writers is just becoming hilarious. His only claims to fame are naming a post office and agreeing in an intelligence and process crime investigation of a percieved political enemy.

    Literally the only thing Amash accomplished in 10 years was the post office being named. My hero!

    Ineffective idealism is not something to be lauded. Incremental steps to your goal demonstrating effectiveness is a much better path if your a libertarian. Compromise as long as it moves the needle to liberty is not a bad thing.

    Amash swings for home runs but has a 0.000 batting average.

    1. He’s a co-founder of the Freedom Caucus, which is no longer that.
      He explains every vote to his constituents on Facebook.
      He took office in 2011.

      So on your scale, your own batting average is … negative.

      1. List his major accomplishments so we can laugh at them.

        Regulations rolled back, money saved, etc.

        Make your case.

        1. I already did.
          So you fucked up what I posted, AND what JesseAz. said.

          1. Wait wait wait, THAT’S ALL YOU HAVE?

            AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAH

            I THOUGHT THERE WAS A CHANCE YOU ACTUALLY HAD SOMETHING </b

            AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAH

            Now fuck off Hihn

            1. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAH

              THAT’S ALL HIHN HAS

              AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAH

              1. HE EXPLAINS HIS VOTES ON FACEBOOK! HE LIES ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND HIHN LISTS THAT AS AN ACCOMPLISHMENT

                AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHH

                1. He stopped explaining his votes on Facebook a long time ago.

        2. “List his major accomplishments so we can laugh at them.”

          I would think that the anti-social wingnuts who post here would wish to avoid the issue of “accomplishments” after having their liberal-libertarian betters stomp conservatives in the culture war and shove progress down the malcontents’ whiny, inconsequential throats throughout the entirety of their lives.

          Maybe lack of self-awareness is another of the clingers’ problems.

          1. “I would think”

            No one cares.

          2. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland
            June.11.2019 at 2:22 pm
            “I would think that the anti-social wingnuts who post here would wish to avoid the issue of “accomplishments” after having their liberal-libertarian betters stomp conservatives in the culture war and shove progress down the malcontents’ whiny, inconsequential throats throughout the entirety of their lives.”

            First, thinking is not something you do; you’re a fucking bigoted asshole.
            Further, you’re the one getting your words jammed down his throat, always claiming a “win” anyhow.
            Tell us, you fucking ignoramus, what did winning feel like on a certain midnight in November, 2016?

          3. The Rev’s dream of accomplishment:
            “stomp conservatives in the culture war and shove progress down the malcontents’ whiny, inconsequential throats throughout the entirety of their lives.”

            Sounds familiar.

            You can never read 1984 Part 3, Chapter 3 enough. O’Brien explains the Modern Left, and our Good Reverend.
            http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/19.html

            But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

            Rev: “Maybe lack of self-awareness is another of the clingers’ problems.”

            Bwahahaha! The best jokes are the ones people unintentionally tell about themselves.

            1. Umm, here’s a link that proves you wrong. Support for socially conservative values has been falling for decades.
              https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/11/trumps-transgender-military-ban-is-losing-even-his-own-party/

              That’s on transgender in the military. 2/3 of all Americans oppose Trump’s ban on that. Since Trump took office, support FROM HIS OWN PART has increased by 40% – from 27% support to 37%,. (Even higher at Quinnopac) Independents are 60%.

              As Trump brings these issues to the front, which most people have never thought about, most obviously reject it. Largely because over 60% of Americans self-identify as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I don’t know how many are liberal on both fiscal and personal issues, but social conservatives rank quite low, and all the momentum is for even worse.

              “In the land of the free and the home of the brave”

              1. TYPO. GOP support for transgenders in the military is now 47% – up from 37% when Trump took office. All the other numbers were typed properly. 2/3 of Americans do oppose Trump’s ban on transgender troops.

          4. No accomplishments is far better than the “accomplishments” claimed by most Congressmen – even ones that pretend to be for liberty and smaller government – in passing laws that further restrict liberty and grow the federal government a little more.

            1. (laughing out loud)

              1) Trump has ALREADY added more 8-year debt than Obama did AFTER 8 years. (CBO debt forecast for 2024)

              2) Trump is the first President to EVER increase the deficit by OVER 40% … in a single year … with a booming economy.

              Now compare.

              1) Obama inherited the second worst economy since the Great Depression, and …

              2) Trump inherited — from Obama — the longest recovery EVER for an incoming President. Like TRUMP’S birth to a rich father ,., he was born on 3rd base and thinks he hit a triple.

              Trump RIDICULED Obama’s improved unemployment … saying (correctly) that (SOME OF) it was caused by people abandoning the labor force … GIVING UP.

              WHY IS TRUMP’S LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION WORSE THAN WHAT OBAMA LEFT HIM?

      2. Lol. Your aim of Congress is taking losing votes? God the idiocy of some here. I listed Amashs only legislative accomplishment. Yes singular.

        1. I swear to god I thought when I asked that Amash did something.

        2. RON PAUL!!!!!
          Amash outscores him by an infinity percentage … on YOUR guidelines. Sponsoring a law that passed. Where Ron was a disgrace.

          He sponsored the bill that attempted to forbid SCOTUS from even considering a challenge to DOMA. — gays would be the first group DENIED any defense of constitutional rights since slavery.

          He never did shit, and revered as “Doctor No,” because he never voted for anything that increased government spending. All his “proposals” were wacky, The absolute craziest is to repeal the income tax, replace it with nothing, and run the entire government on ….. wait for it …. FICA TAXES.

          He never actually said “FICA taxes” which would have reveal that liberty hustle to anyone with an IQ of 80 or more. Because he’d have to explain how to pass hundreds of millions of cuts in Social Security and Medicare, Instead, he waved his arms (as always) and said it would be “easy” to cut sufficient spending. (lol)

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano desperately flailing in his lunacy.

      3. IOW, even the one contribution you think he made turned out to be a failure too.

    2. “Compromise as long as it moves the needle to liberty is not a bad thing.” Compromise never moves the needle to liberty because Democrats and establishment Republicans are inherently authoritarian.

      1. Bingo. The two parties conspired to fuck us in 1986 … and wound up destroying our industrial base … which PROVES Trump has no clue how to restore all those jobs.

        They also conspired on Medicare Prescriptions … to loot the income tax for 45% of ALL Medicare spending. That’s 4x higher than what Prescriptions (Plan D) needed. But they needed Democrat votes, and Democrats cleaned their clock (again).

        Translate: Medicare now runs annual deficits over $300 BILLION, from the original funding of FICA + co-pays + deductibles.. That $300 billion still gets borrowed, but charged to the General Fund, not the Trust Fund. So REPUBLICANS sponsored the preservation of the Medicare funding!

        The Bush tax cuts were another massive middle-class subsidy. 85% of the cuts went to people earning under $200,000 per year, who were paying only 45% of the tax.

        So .. Republicans borrowed trillions of dollars, explicitly to buy middle-class votes, the lost all three — the House, Senate and Presidency — to Obama’s Democrats! And now Trump’s GOP has already created record deficits!

        We’re all fucked,

        1. You’re f*cked because you depend on the government. Other people are fine no matter what.

          1. For how long will you remain functionally illiterate?
            Or confused?
            Or a liar?

            1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano is an expert on liars because he does it all the time.

              1. PROVE IT, PSYCHO ASSASSIN.
                PUT UP OR SHUT UP. BE A MAN, FOR ONCE.

                OF THE FOUR FACTS I USED TO CRUSH YOUR PATHETIC ASS … WHICH ONE(S) DO YOU WANT ABSOLUTE PROOF FOR.

                i could post the links now … to original sources … but PUBLICLY HUMILIATING STATIST THUGS, in defense of aggression is what REAL libertarians enjoy second-most.

                (Again posted in defense of over 30 aggressions on this page alone, by a stalking psycho)

    3. The hero worship of Amash by the reason writers is just becoming hilarious.

      Hero worship? Seems a little hyperbolic. They like the guy and some things he’s said lately. Is that really hero worship?

      1. They’ve now had 4 dedicated articles from Amash about impeachment. They had one addendum blurb on Ron Paul Jr for being against impeachment. Staying with hero worship.

    4. Amash is much like reason. Make a stink about the things that they have no chance of changing and side with the totalitarian left when a move towards liberty seems possible or the left may be damaged politically. See Suderman and health care.

  21. “and that most Republicans are defending him out of little more than pure partisanship.”

    Go peddle your shit tier strawmen somewhere else. Even the most liberal reading of the Mueller report still leads to the same conclusion that Trump acted as any President would be permitted to and that corrupt intent must be prescribed in order for his conduct to be considered obstruction. With regards to that corrupt intent, there is none because as we finally got you TDS sufferers to admit after nearly 3 years of nonstop bullshit, there was no underlying crime. Good luck proving corrupt intent to cover up something that didn’t happen.

    Also, it’s really sad when Reason writers start supporting impeachment on procedural crimes. You want non-partisanship? Here you go: Clinton shouldn’t have been impeached, perjury traps are bullshit, and this is bullshit too.

    1. Here you go: Clinton shouldn’t have been impeached, perjury traps are bullshit, and this is bullshit too.

      Yeah, it’s only partisanship if you look at the effective political suicide impeaching Clinton was and realize “I want no part of that!”

      1. Don’t blame me for being 4 when Clinton was impeached. The only remotely plausible argument against Trump (and it’s still a massive stretch) is procedural crime and when it comes to crime in America, you can indict a ham sandwich.

    2. Except that you are full of shit. Did you read the article? A challenger to Amash defends Trump but admits he hasn’t read the report. That is partisanship, by definition. If he is innocent, why be afraid to read the report?
      And you are seriously arguing that personal loyalty to the President is the job of executive branch employees, instead of, you know, executing the laws of the United States, regardless of who the president is?

      1. Does every single person need to personally read the report? Does reading it make you an expert, even if you have no expertise in law? You should be asking yourself these questions before you post trash like that.

        My argument didn’t even mention loyalty. My basis is that when no underlying crime occurred (no collusion or any illegal act that one could obstruct), arguments for obstruction of justice should not even be entertained. It is not an un-Libertarian position to suggest that the feds currently use perjury traps to squeeze incriminating (but not necessarily illegal) information out of people. Lying about anything is an offense, which it shouldn’t be, especially since the line between lying and human error is thin to begin with.

        That aside, even if you believe that Trump’s actions constitute obstruction, you have to prove the intent behind them. Ex. telling McGahn to fire Mueller. Mueller is a DoJ appointee and firing him does not obstruct the investigation. It is perfectly lawful for a President to remove such an appointee. The investigation would have continued unimpeded.

        The burden of proof on the impeachment crowd has been to prove corrupt intent. This is simply part of meeting the bar for obstruction of justice. I’ve yet to see a single person even come close to proving that getting rid of a jackass political hack who couldn’t stop leaking to the press amounted to outright ending or impeding an investigation, nor have I seen anyone prove that venting about that investigation, which was started on false premises and blatant propaganda, constitutes obstruction in any way, shape or form.

        1. I haven’t read the report because if there was anything actually there the left would be disseminating it constantly.

          That all we get are vague and hysterical cries for impeachment is telling.

          1. I haven’t read the report because if there was anything actually there the left would be disseminating it constantly

            A dozen times per day is not enough?
            But your whining is sufficient, as you publicly admit being a know-nothing?

            1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano whines whenever someone uses mean words against him. That’s why he keeps an Enemies List.

    3. Has any Reason writer made any statement that clearly supports impeachment?
      I haven’t seen any, but I may have missed it.

      1. Or is it just that they haven’t stated unambiguously that there is absolutely no grounds for impeachment and everyone who thinks there is is a garbage person who we must hate?

      2. The only article I saw from some of the staff suggested that Trump was innocent because his cabinet members ignored his requests or he outright failed to obstruct. I’ve yet to see anyone actually address why Trump ordered what he ordered and said what he said, most likely because once they examine said facts, they will see that even if his orders were executed word for word, they still wouldn’t constitute obstruction.

        1. And that at the end of the day, regardless of all this procedural horseshit, the best argument possible is that Trump obstructed an investigation started on propaganda to look into an event that did not occur. Everyone who was arrested, charged or convicted on anything relating to this investigation should be pardoned.

          1. And not once has Reason questioned the legitimacy of the former administration colluding with the DNC and using the full power of the intelligence community to spy on and fabricate suspicion against Trump.
            Reason writes 35 articles a day on some podunk town sheriff being overly aggressive in their questioning, but fully supports The State persecuting duly elected political opponents.
            The people responsible for Reason can fuck off and die

            1. Where’s your evidence?

  22. He’s a douche protecting his interests in China which he gets $1,000,000 a year from.

    1. Like half the politicians in DC do.

      1. It’s only unconstitutional for the President.
        Google the Emoluments Clause. Break the puppet strings.

    2. Feimstein even gets a driver from china.

  23. “Arguably the most important part of Amash’s original Twitter thread came not from his initial conclusion that Trump’s conduct was impeachable, but at the end, where he decried the general unwillingness of members of Congress to perform their constitutional duties when doing so would violate their partisan interests.”

    Assumes facts not in evidence.
    Amash thinks congress should do something; that’s a personal opinion based on assumptions, not facts.

    1. Last time I checked, he’s a member of Congress. Couldn’t he, you know, file articles of impeachment? I’m sure the Democrats would absolutely love it if a Republican did that.

      1. So you’re also totally clueless on Articles of Impeachment!.

        1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano remains clueless while accusing others of being clueless. That’s why I’m so good at getting his sockpuppets nuked, and why I’m number one on his Enemies List.

          1. Articles of Impeachment require a majority vote in the House.
            Amash also cannot amend the Constitution on his o

            1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks he’s making relevant points.

              1. Articles of Impeachment require a majority vote in the House.
                Amash also cannot amend the Constitution on his own

                Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks he’s making relevant points.

                But you say a congressman can pass laws all on his own??

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano can’t argue without strawmen.

                  1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano can’t argue without strawmen.

                    (snort) Bend over. This will go up easier (

                    DesigNate
                    June.12.2019 at 3:36 am
                    Last time I checked, he’s a member of Congress. Couldn’t he, you know, file articles of impeachment? I’m sure the Democrats would absolutely love it if a Republican did that.

                    REPEAT

                    TheFOURTHReich
                    June.12.2019 at 2:36 pm
                    Articles of Impeachment require a majority vote in the House.
                    Amash also cannot amend the Constitution on his own

                    NOW CAN YOU HEAR ME???

                    CALLING YOU OUT, AGGRESSOR. PUT UP OR SHUT UP

                    1) WHY IS IT A STRAW MAN TO STATE THAT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT CANNOT BE FILED BY A SINGLE CONGRESSMAN

                    2) WERE YOU BULLYING ME, OR ARE YOU AS WACKY AS DESIGNATE? (or both?)

                    (Posted in defense of over 30 acts of aggression by this thug
                    “Mess with the bull get the horns.”

        2. Yes, it appears my terminology was incorrect. Amash could make the charge on the floor of the House instead of on twitter and get the ball rolling.

          1. Now you say Pelosi is infinitely smarter than him.
            Moreso than you.

  24. He’s Fighting the Two-Party System.

    Good luck with that fight. You know who else has been fighting the two-party system?

      1. Trump fought the Globalist One Party State.

        He’s brought most all of the Republican base with him, while much of the Republican establishment is still with the Globalist Uniparty.

        1. “Trump fought the Globalist One Party State”

          And Reason will never forgive him for that

    1. Mötley Crüe ?

  25. You can’t beat the 2 party system. You have to hijack one of the parties. I have no idea why Amash is committing career suicide. Especially given he had so little interest in working for a living in the real world — he is going to find himself out of a job pretty quickly. For what? Attention from Reason’s B-Squad?

    1. There’s no mystery why Amash is doing this.

      If you’re Open Borders Uber Alles, you’re against Trump.

  26. I like Justin and Randal right where they are–confusing Republican nationalsocialists and questioning their dogma (however ineffectively). We don’t need them infiltrating to turn the LP into a Jim Jones cult.

  27. Although not the only thing that is causing it, it was a BIG mistake of the founders NOT to address the party issue in the constitution.

    Washington warned of it in his farewell speech, seemingly to no avail.

    By ignoring the dangers of party affiliation/factionalism and not adding something to the constitution structurally to address it (who knows what??!) it might just be the downfall.

    1. Address it, how?

      Electoral politics are about electoral coalitions.

      Parties are *more* in control in parliamentary systems.

      1. Parliamentary systems are the exact opposite. It’s only minor parties who gain power, and only when a major party is forced to form a coalition with one ore more minor parties.

        1. Whether it’s major parties or minor parties, it’s the parties in power.

          If the parties were in power in the US, we wouldn’t have had Trump.

          1. WHOOOOOOOSH

            1. The sound of wind sweeping through Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s skull.

              1. The sound of wind sweeping through Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s skull.

                1) Why do YOU state that … under our Constitution …. a three-party system, under our Constitution, would make it PARLIAMENTARY?

                2) Why is your life so pitifully empty … that you log in here … solely to launch over 30 acts of aggression … all of which are as totally IGNORANT as that one?

                KEEP IT UP!!! (sneer)

                (Posted in defense of another mindless aggression)

  28. […] After Libertarian-leaning Republican Justin Amash broke with his party and called for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, as The Inquisitr previously reported, he received backlash from his party and even lost donor support. Most recently, he left the House Freedom Caucus he helped found, per Reason. […]

  29. […] After Libertarian-leaning Republican Justin Amash broke with his party and called for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, as The Inquisitr previously reported, he received backlash from his party and even lost donor support. Most recently, he left the House Freedom Caucus he helped found, per Reason. […]

  30. […] After Libertarian-leaning Republican Justin Amash broke with his party and called for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, as The Inquisitr previously reported, he received backlash from his party and even lost donor support. Most recently, he left the House Freedom Caucus he helped found, per Reason. […]

  31. […] After Libertarian-leaning Republican Justin Amash broke with his party and called for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, as The Inquisitr previously reported, he received backlash from his party and even lost donor support. Most recently, he left the House Freedom Caucus he helped found, per Reason. […]

  32. […] After Libertarian-leaning Republican Justin Amash broke with his party and called for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, as The Inquisitr previously reported, he received backlash from his party and even lost donor support. Most recently, he left the House Freedom Caucus he helped found, per Reason. […]

  33. […] After Libertarian-leaning Republican Justin Amash broke with his party and called for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, as The Inquisitr previously reported, he received backlash from his party and even lost donor support. Most recently, he left the House Freedom Caucus he helped found, per Reason. […]

  34. […] After Libertarian-leaning Republican Justin Amash broke with his party and called for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, as The Inquisitr previously reported, he received backlash from his party and even lost donor support. Most recently, he left the House Freedom Caucus he helped found, per Reason. […]

  35. […] After Libertarian-leaning Republican Justin Amash broke with his party and called for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, as The Inquisitr previously reported, he received backlash from his party and even lost donor support. Most recently, he left the House Freedom Caucus he helped found, per Reason. […]

  36. […] After Libertarian-leaning Republican Justin Amash broke with his party and called for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, as The Inquisitr previously reported, he received backlash from his party and even lost donor support. Most recently, he left the House Freedom Caucus he helped found, per Reason. […]

  37. […] After Libertarian-leaning Republican Justin Amash broke with his party and called for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, as The Inquisitr previously reported, he received backlash from his party and even lost donor support. Most recently, he left the House Freedom Caucus he helped found, per Reason. […]

  38. Would be one thing if Amash’s ideas actually had traction but right now he is little more than a useful idiot for the progs and a gadfly for the Trump cult. Just like how Ron Paul was during Bush.

    1. Ron Paul opposed Bush on long held principles, not trendy bs.

      1. Yup. And that’s why I respect RP, and not Amash.

        1. You respect a fascist thug … who sponsored a bill that would prohibit SCOTUS from even hearing any appeals to DOMA?

          You support denying gays any defense of their constitutional rights … the first such ban since slavery? Because faggots are as bad as niggers? (sarc)
          .
          Did you enjoy marching with torches in Charlottesville?
          Voting for Trump?

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano enjoys being a loser, which is why he’ll die alone and unloved.

          2. Nice to see you Hihn!

            Nobody is perfect… But RP is 99.8% perfect politically speaking. I’ll take it.

      2. Ron Paul has no long-term principles which are not authoritarian.
        And a highly gullible cult.

  39. […] After Libertarian-leaning Republican Justin Amash broke with his party and called for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, as The Inquisitr previously reported, he received backlash from his party and even lost donor support. Most recently, he left the House Freedom Caucus he helped found, per Reason. […]

  40. Amash should join the Amish Peace Through Genocide Party.
    At least his name is close to their spelling.

  41. Seriously, what the hell happened to the Reason comment section? A steady stream of fact-optional Pro-Trump nonsense takes up the majority of the threads to nearly every story now. Sad.

    1. Glad to see there is pro-Trump factual comments to counter the propaganda coming from reason writers.

    2. If the writers at Reason weren’t such shite and actually gave sane, balanced reporting in most of the articles, commenters wouldn’t have to call them on their bullshit so often.

      I don’t think Trump is the messiah… But the TDS thing is 4realz yo!

      1. Trump Derangement Syndrome = Obama Derangement Syndrome.
        Left – Right = Zero = Both puppets on a string, mind controlled by the political elites.

        1. I didn’t have OBS Hihn. I strongly disliked him because I disagreed with him on about 95% of stuff… With Trump I probably agree at least in theory on 90%.

          Pants shitting to too great an extreme was unwarranted with either. The difference is that the entire political establishment on both sides, the entire media, the deep state, etc weren’t suffering from OBS, but they are suffering from TDS.

  42. Amash is a Globalist for the Deep State Coup.

    “Libertarian Moment”

    1. He’ll probably take over as head of Resson when Welchie Boy gets tired of pretending he’s a libertarian for a living.

  43. I liked Amash, he was one of us RINO Libertarians in Congress, one of the few.
    Now he’s leaving the freedom caucus, mainly because he claims that DT is guilty of obstruction, based on Mueller reports’ of DT frustration of the investigation *after* it started, and where DT didn’t actually obstruct, and whatever DT did was within his Const’l rights to do so — he IS the executive head of the Executive Branch of the United States government.
    Amash, and Napolitano, both IMO are nitpicking things that are generally normal actions by the president. Nothing DT was hidden, the investigation was for a non-crime, and DT had executive authority. And he just didn’t obstruct anything.
    I think they have a need to show they are not reflexively pro-Trump, and they then let their pendulums swing too far the other way.

    1. Trump will complete his destruction of the GOP.
      Unless the Dems nominate a Bernie, Elizabeth or equivalent, which would be the destruction of America. A socialist vs a fascist.

  44. Amash has let his TDS take over completely. It’s fine and well to bitch about bad actions taken by the president… But he does it like a whiney little girl, and in an attention seeking way. Ron Paul called bullshit on most shit that Ds and Rs pulled in government, but he didn’t do it like a bitch. Rand MOSTLY does the same thing too, although he’s willing to play ball a bit more, which is why he will probably be the most effective libertarian leaner we’ve had in congress in decades.

  45. You can look to Europe to see what happens when you get rid of the two party system by having some form of proportional representation. No, you don’t get large libertarian parties. What you get is large socialist, communist, and fascist parties.

    The fact that Amash thinks this is an improvement shows you just what an anti-libertarian idiot he is.

    1. You really don’t know that you made an authoritarian statement?
      And revealed absolute ignorance between our republic and a parliamentary system.

      He’s the idiot, but you oppose libertarians EVER getting elected, because YOU think a three-party system … in America … is parliamentary.

    2. Honestly, I think what you say above is largely true… And preferable.

      I think having hard line parties represented proportionally, of which libertarians are one, is waaay better. Coalitions can be formed as needed to get people to the point of being able to pass laws. But it allows more proper expression of where peoples opinions actually are at.

  46. Nothing says “libertarian” like supporting the FBI illegally surveilling an opposition presidential candidate and running a criminal investigation based on unverified and fabricated information. For his next libertarian act, will Amash encourage federal agencies to illegally leak personal information of politicians he doesn’t like?

    Haha…just kidding. His next libertarian act is going to be losing to Jim Lower in the MI-3 Republican primary because the only thing Amash has accomplished in eight years is renaming a post office.

    1. Nothing says “brainwashing and mind control” like believing an FBI conspiracy. with NO CLUE that the investigation began when George Papadopolis (sp?) bragged to a foreign diplomat that the Trump campaign was actively supported by the Russian government.

      That Donald Trump Jr. posted emails that he KNOWINGLY conspired with the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT’s desire to elect his father ,… in planning the Trump Tower Campaign.

      PROOF .. on his own Twitter feed

      Russian invitation to Donald Jr.
      “The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

      “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin”.

      LOCK THEM UP!

    2. Noting says brainwashed like swallowing the illegal surveillance meme. That’s even worse than voting for Trump.
      Or Hillary
      Or Obama
      Or Dubya

      “Nobody has ever underestimated the intelligence of the American voter.”

  47. Honestly, I agree with Rand Paul and I don’t think Trump’s actions were impeachable. The entire investigation from the beginning was anti-libertarian.

    This isn’t to say that I am 100% pro Trump- he has done a handful of things I have liked (more than Obama or Bush), but that doesn’t change the fact that he is a doofus. Like Obama and Bush, Trump has done things that are pretty ridiculous and anti-libertarian.

    1. Umm, HELLO!
      Trump just announced that he has “no problem” getting information from Russia or China in 2020, but ONLY if it helps HIM win.

      1) He’ll soon deny saying what he said, again.
      2) Videos will prove he did say it, played everywhere but Fox.
      3) Trumpsters will screech: DEEP STATE, GLOBALIST CONSPIRACY.

      Same as always.

  48. […] The fed-up Michigan congressman just left the House Freedom Caucus he helped found. — Read on reason.com/2019/06/11/justin-amash-isnt-just-rebelling-against-trump-hes-fighting-the-two-party-syst… […]

  49. Libertarians: You should enjoy Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland’s posts. It’s the closest you’ll ever come to driving your enemies before you and hearing the lamentations of their women.

  50. […] and Amash have been at odds over Trump’s behavior to the point that Amash has left the House Freedom Caucus they both helped found. Nevertheless Jordan showed up to declare his support for Amash’s […]

  51. […] and Amash have been at odds over Trump’s behavior to the point that Amash has left the House Freedom Caucus they both helped found. Nevertheless Jordan showed up to declare his support for Amash’s […]

  52. […] (R–Ohio) and Amash have been at odds over Trump’s behavior to the point that Amash has left the House Freedom Caucus they both helped found. Nevertheless Jordan showed up to declare his support for Amash’s […]

  53. […] and Amash have been at odds over Trump’s behavior to the point that Amash has left the House Freedom Caucus they both helped found. Nevertheless Jordan showed up to declare his support for Amash’s […]

Please to post comments