# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Justin Amash Forum >  Amash is at it again

## acptulsa

Representatives Amash (R-MI) and Lofgren (D-CA) have proposed an amendment to one of the mini-omnibus bills to curb NSA domestic data reaping under 702.  I can't find the specific bill, but it may be HR 2740.  Anyone still interested in activism might keep and eye out for it, and might just call their representative and let them know they're being watched.

I now turn this thread over to the shylls to tell us we'd rather be spied on by the NSA than lift one finger to back a California Democrat or a non-Trumpsucking Republican.

----------


## invisible

Ah, so that explains the sudden intense propaganda campain against Amash here!

----------


## enhanced_deficit

This would lead to increased attacks on Amash from  pro globalist interventions/pro wars neocons , swamp wing cheerleaders etc.

Would Amash be the alternative Republican/Libertarian leadership if GOP-MAGA wing faltered in 2020 as appears to be pretty likely now after recent UK blunder?

----------


## PAF

Did I miss trumps tweet rallying his base to contact their reps concerning this to MAGA?

Justin Amash, _still_ the top Congressman in the house.

----------


## dannno

Ok, I will call Dianne $#@!ing Feinstein and ask her to support the bill when it gets to the Senate, because I wouldn't want some insane person with TDS to think I'm a "shill for the establishment" lol....


Talk about propaganda.. this thread is a prime example.

----------


## jmdrake

> Ok, I will call Dianne $#@!ing Feinstein and ask her to support the bill when it gets to the Senate, because I wouldn't want some insane person with TDS to think I'm a "shill for the establishment" lol....
> 
> 
> Talk about propaganda.. this thread is a prime example.


Well one of your insane buddies with TSDS (Trump Supporter's Derangement Syndrome) compared me to Bernie Sanders simply for pointing out that Trump's bumpfire stock ban by executive order was a bad precedent so we're even.

----------


## jkr

AN EXCELLENT MOVE
that SHOULD NOT be necessary...

IS EVERY GENERATION GOING TO HAVE TO REITERATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS SO THE WONT USE THE BILL OF WRONGS?

----------


## spudea

Amash and Lofgren sponsored the same amendment in Jan 2018 and it was voted down.

----------


## Origanalist

> Ok, I will call Dianne $#@!ing Feinstein and ask her to support the bill when it gets to the Senate, because I wouldn't want some insane person with TDS to think I'm a "shill for the establishment" lol....
> 
> 
> Talk about propaganda.. this thread is a prime example.


I heard you and Dianne were an item.

----------


## spudea

> Did I miss trumps tweet rallying his base to contact their reps concerning this to MAGA?
> 
> Justin Amash, _still_ the top Congressman in the house.


The NSA surveillance abuses are hated just the same.  You will find a sympathetic ear in POTUS.  If I were Amash, I would call President Trump and ask for his support.  Too bad he burned that bridge with his insane lies about impeachment.

----------


## nobody's_hero

This has substance and isn't based on media falsehood and whipped up frenzy. 

Are we sure we want to dedicate our time to this, instead of continuing to follow the MSM's cues on where to look for evil Russian super-villians?

Maybe I should call Amash's office and tell him not to lose sight of the Russian boogeymen.

----------------------------------
(Seriously though, this is more like it. This is the kind of stuff Amash should be/have been focused on))

----------


## Ender

> *The NSA surveillance abuses are hated just the same.  You will find a sympathetic ear in POTUS.*  If I were Amash, I would call President Trump and ask for his support.  Too bad he burned that bridge with his insane lies about impeachment.


Really.

Is that why the British home secretary has just signed a request from the US for Julian Assange to be extradited- where he faces an 18-count indictment, issued by the US Department of Justice? 
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/06/...assange-to-us/

So much sympathy.

----------


## nikcers

My objectivity has never been more clear. Rand said he had his campaign spied on, Trump had his campaign spied on too, but lets impeach Trump because they couldn't find anything when they spied on him.. Mike Pence isn't a neocon who would put us to war with Iran. I will call my representatives immediately and tell them to support impeachment immediately

#MikePence2019

----------


## dannno

> My objectivity has never been more clear. Rand said he had his campaign spied on, Trump had his campaign spied on too, but lets impeach Trump because they couldn't find anything when they spied on him.. Mike Pence isn't a neocon who would put us to war with Iran. I will call my representatives immediately and tell them to support impeachment immediately
> 
> #MikePence2019


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Rainbow-Snatch

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The NSA surveillance abuses are hated just the same.  You will find a sympathetic ear in POTUS.  If I were Amash, I would call President Trump and ask for his support.  Too bad he burned that bridge with his insane lies about impeachment.


^^^THIS^^^


I will absolutely support Amash in this even if it hasn't a chance of passing but it does NOTHING to absolve him of supporting the same illegal spying against Trump.

----------


## acptulsa

> Ok, I will call Dianne $#@!ing Feinstein and ask her to support the bill when it gets to the Senate, because I wouldn't want some insane person with TDS to think I'm a "shill for the establishment" lol....
> 
> 
> Talk about propaganda.. this thread is a prime example.


You're going to call a Senator and tell her to vote for an amendment to a House bill?  Or you're going to tell a Senator to vote for a House bill because of an amendment that hasn't been added to it yet, without telling her to ensure it gets added first, and ensure the Senate version includes it too?  Even though House members are obviously easier to persuade, because you're clearly a larger percentage of his or her constituency than a senator of an overpopulated state?  Do you even know who your Rep is?

Good, dannno.  *_pats head_*  Your value as an activist is on par with your ability to spot--or even define--propaganda.

----------


## oyarde

> Ah, so that explains the sudden intense propaganda campain against Amash here!


I doubt it . Doubt anyone knows about it .

----------


## oyarde

Also , whoever called JMDrake bernie sanders , that is just wrong .

----------


## oyarde

I think it is great Amash is doing this . I would not even want to be in the same room as lofgren , disgusting . This is how they need to earn all that money . Doing jobs nobody else would .

----------


## Anti Globalist

Hoping the amendment gets passed but I doubt it.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> The NSA surveillance abuses are hated just the same.  You will find a sympathetic ear in POTUS.  If I were Amash, I would call President Trump and ask for his support.  Too bad he burned that bridge with his insane lies about impeachment.



MAGA team  should not take lightly persistent narratives being built in social media to paint MAGA team/its funders as B team of Deep Stage/neocons, unfortunately this is not 2016 and no longer have advanatge of being underdogs and no track record. 




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr6F6dZ0Qqg

*Trump 'errs on the side of security'--supports Patriot Act and NSA metadata collection**Trump: Restore the Patriot Act*

----------


## nikcers

> MAGA team  should not take lightly persistent narratives being built in social media to paint MAGA team/its funders as B team of Deep Stage/neocons, unfortunately this is not 2016 and no longer have advanatge of being underdogs and no track record. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr6F6dZ0Qqg
> 
> *Trump 'errs on the side of security'--supports Patriot Act and NSA metadata collection**Trump: Restore the Patriot Act*


Tulsi Gabbard is the new Obama.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> Tulsi Gabbard is the new Obama.


Could be. But to be fair she has been pretty vocal against ISIS unlike Obama  (lately there is resurgence of ISIS and  Dems may label  MAGA as 'Founding Father of ISIS 2.0' during debates).  

Also, MAGA was previously seen as Netanyahu of GOP-Adelson money wing by hard right conservatives.

----------


## nikcers

> Could be. But to be fair she has been pretty vocal against ISIS unlike Obama  (lately there is resurgence of ISIS and  Dems may label  MAGA as 'Founding Father of ISIS 2.0' during debates).  
> 
> Also, MAGA was previously seen as Netanyahu of GOP-Adelson money wing by hard right conservatives.


Obama created ISIS so they would have an enemey to fight in every corner of the world and keep Israel and other countries in the middle east beholden to us for protection, she has consponsered a ton of pro Israel legislation, one of them to authorize force again Iran.

----------


## TheCount

> The NSA surveillance abuses are hated just the same.  You will find a sympathetic ear in POTUS.


If that's true, then why have neither Trump nor his flunkies ever suggested any sort of changes to domestic surveillance laws?

----------


## nikcers

> If that's true, then why have neither Trump nor his flunkies ever suggested any sort of changes to domestic surveillance laws?


The deep state will attack him for anything like that, he has to color between the lines otherwise his presidency is over and he can't do good for the country. He would probably feel more comfortable going after the deep state if he had more public support.

----------


## TheCount

> The deep state will attack him for anything like that, he has to color between the lines otherwise his presidency is over and he can't do good for the country. He would probably feel safter to go after the deep state if he had more public support.


It's all part of his plan to get rid of Paul Ryan.

----------


## nikcers

> It's all part of his plan to get rid of Paul Ryan.


Are you pretending like there is public support to get rid of the broken laws? When Rand sparred with Chris Christie in the debates he polled lower with Republicans than Chris Christie on the "get a warrant" issue. If more people demanded the government needs a warrant to surveill an American citizen than he could do it, otherwise it would eat at his support and they would use it against him.

----------


## TheCount

> Are you pretending like there is public support to give rid of the broken laws? When Rand sparred with Chris Christie in the debates he polled lower with Republicans than Chris Christie on the "get a warrant" issue. If more peoplle demanded the government needs a warrant to surveill an American citizen than he could do it, otherwise it would eat at his support and they would use it against him.


Trump can evidently convince Trumpkins that up is down and black is white, and he's been beating the 'I was spied on' drum since 2016.  If the Invertebrate-American  population believes that the deep state is real and that the deep state uses domestic surveillance against fine, upstanding liberty-minded folks like Trump, it should take no effort to convince them that the logical solution is to at the very least revamp FISA.

Rand had that debate at a time when the Trumpkin believed that government power was a weapon to be used against brown people.  Now they at least vaguely understand that it is also a weapon that also works against white people.

(This exclusively applies to intelligence agencies.  They've gone the opposite way on police power, and support it more vigorously than ever.)

----------


## nikcers

> Trump can evidently convince Trumpkins that up is down and black is white, and he's been beating the 'I was spied on' drum since 2016.  If the Invertebrate-American  population believes that the deep state is real and that the deep state uses domestic surveillance against fine, upstanding liberty-minded folks like Trump, it should take no effort to convince them that the logical solution is to at the very least revamp FISA.
> 
> Rand had that debate at a time when the Trumpkin believed that government power was a weapon to be used against brown people.  Now they at least vaguely understand that it is also a weapon that also works against white people.
> 
> (This exclusively applies to intelligence agencies.  They've gone the opposite way on police power, and support it more vigorously than ever.)


Rand said his campaign was sureveilled, you don't think Trump was spied on by the deep state?

----------


## oyarde

> Tulsi Gabbard is the new Obama.


And an expert on hypocrisy . Only ED could find that.

----------


## TheCount

> Rand said his campaign was sureveilled, you don't think Trump was spied on by the deep state?


The question isn't whether or not his campaign was surveilled, it is whether or not such surveillance was legitimate.

The sort of person who is now a Trumpkin likely believed such surveillance to be a good and legitimate thing before Trump began speaking about it.

----------


## nikcers

> The question isn't whether or not his campaign was surveilled, it is whether or not such surveillance was legitimate.
> 
> The sort of person who is now a Trumpkin likely believed such surveillance to be a good and legitimate thing before Trump began speaking about it.


I agree if you are saying that ever since Trump derailed the Russia investigation with the whole spygate thing republican voters are now less likely to think that such surveillance is a good. I also think he tried to troll the democrats into being against it by saying he would accept foreign intel in the ABC interview. Real FISA reform is going to take a lot of public support because they are not above a false flag in order to present a false narrative that the surveillance is necessary.

----------


## TheCount

> I agree if you are saying that ever since Trump derailed the Russia investigation with the whole spygate thing republican voters are now less likely to think that such surveillance is a good. I also think he tried to troll the democrats into being against it by saying he would accept foreign intel in the ABC interview. Real FISA reform is going to take a lot of public support because they are not above a false flag in order to present a false narrative that the surveillance is necessary.


The civil liberties-friendly wing of the left has been supportive of changes to domestic surveillance for a long time.  If Trump actually gave a $#@! about it he could easily make changes.  The fact that he has not and will not make an effort to do something that is so in line with his PR narrative says everything that needs to be said.

----------


## nikcers

> The civil liberties-friendly wing of the left has been supportive of changes to domestic surveillance for a long time.  If Trump actually gave a $#@! about it he could easily make changes.  The fact that he has not and will not make an effort to do something that is so in line with his PR narrative says everything that needs to be said.


Either that or he needs as much support as possible right now because the dems tried to impeach him. If there were enough Justin Amash's in Congress Mike Pence would be president.

----------


## TheCount

> Either that or he needs as much support as possible right now because the dems tried to impeach him. If there were enough Justin Amash's in Congress Mike Pence would be president.


Maybe if Trump took on issues like surveillance, the (fictional) liberty wing of the GOP would support him more.

----------


## RonZeplin

> Amash and Lofgren sponsored the same amendment in Jan 2018 and it was voted down.


There would have been more GOP support if Hillary was president, and it might have passed.  Further proof that even Hillary is... Better Than Trump.

----------


## nikcers

> There would have been more GOP support if Hillary was president, and it might have passed.  Further proof that even Hillary is... Better Than Trump.


You mean like all the fake support for cutting spending and getting rid of Obamacare that disappears when Republicans are in the whitehouse? Republicans are really good at supporting stuff when it won't pass against democrat opposition.

----------


## Champ

This is the type of work Amash has done in the past that got him a lot of the praise he deserved.  

Do not let up Justin, keep pushing.. this is why many of us have donated and supported many/all of your campaigns.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The question isn't whether or not his campaign was surveilled, it is whether or not such surveillance was legitimate.
> 
> The sort of person who is now a Trumpkin likely believed such surveillance to be a good and legitimate thing before Trump began speaking about it.


Nope, plenty of Trump supporters opposed the kind of illegal spying that was aimed at Trump.

You are the sort of person that supports it now that it was used on Trump.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> There would have been more GOP support if Hillary was president, and it might have passed.  Further proof that even Hillary is... Better Than Trump.


Not enough to pass it and certainly not enough to override her veto, RINOs are very good at pretending to vote right when it does no good.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The civil liberties-friendly wing of the left has been supportive of changes to domestic surveillance for a long time.


They are too few to mean anything, most of them are fakes as the left's support for the CIA and FBI now that Trump was targeted for illegal surveillance shows.




> If Trump actually gave a $#@! about it he could easily make changes.  The fact that he has not and will not make an effort to do something that is so in line with his PR narrative says everything that needs to be said.


With a hostile Congress and a Deepstate bureaucracy in the way?

LOL

And don't even bother to pretend that the GOP Congress in the first 2 years wasn't controlled by hostile RINOs.

----------


## TheCount

> With a hostile Congress and a Deepstate bureaucracy in the way?
> 
> LOL
> 
> And don't even bother to pretend that the GOP Congress in the first 2 years wasn't controlled by hostile RINOs.


Trump won't suggest anything that isn't popular with congress?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Trump won't suggest anything that isn't popular with congress?


Not if it will get him impeached for "being a Russian puppet who is destroying our intelligence capabilities".

----------


## jmdrake

> ^^^THIS^^^
> 
> 
> I will absolutely support Amash in this even if it hasn't a chance of passing but it does NOTHING to absolve him of supporting the same illegal spying against Trump.


And yet you'll forgive Trump for pushing for the extradition of Julian Assange, the re-imprisonment of Chelsea Manning and calling for the execution of Edward Snowden.

----------


## nikcers

> And yet you'll forgive Trump for pushing for the extradition of Julian Assange, the re-imprisonment of Chelsea Manning and calling for the execution of Edward Snowden.


When did SS say that?

----------


## jmdrake

> When did SS say that?


Actions speak louder than words.  He's not in every pro Trump thread pointing out what he doesn't like about Trump the way he is in this pro Amash thread pointing out what he doesn't like about Amash.

----------


## nikcers

> Actions speak louder than words.  He's not in every pro Trump thread pointing out what he doesn't like about Trump the way he is in this pro Amash thread pointing out what he doesn't like about Amash.


You never agree with a politician on everything unless its yourself, lots of people supported Ron Paul even though they didn't agree with him on everything even a bunch of progressives supported Ron Paul even though they disagreed with him on abortion. This legislation is the reason why most people are upset with Amash, like you are saying actions speak louder than words, and Amash's actions supporting the Hillary Clinton insurance policy that abused FISA and used the deep state that lied us into war with Iraq to spy on people running against Clinton.

----------


## jmdrake

> You never agree with a politician on everything unless its yourself, lots of people supported Ron Paul even though they didn't agree with him on everything even a bunch of progressives supported Ron Paul even though they disagreed with him on abortion. This legislation is the reason why most people are upset with Amash, like you are saying actions speak louder than words, and Amash's actions supporting the Hillary Clinton insurance policy that abused FISA and used the deep state that lied us into war with Iraq to spy on people running against Clinton.


In a thread about NSA spying Swordsmith is giving Donald J. Trump a pass on NSA spying.  Good grief!  Trump isn't even helping the man that arguably helped him get elected!  (Julian Assange).

----------


## nikcers

> In a thread about NSA spying Swordsmith is giving Donald J. Trump a pass on NSA spying.  Good grief!  Trump isn't even helping the man that arguably helped him get elected!  (Julian Assange).


He isn't giving him a pass, no one is saying they will forgive Trump for it. The difference is lots of people supported Trump because they thought if Clinton was president she would literally kill him for what he did. For all we know Trump being president might have kept him alive.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> He isn't giving him a pass, no one is saying they will forgive Trump for it. The difference is lots of people supported Trump because they thought if Clinton was president she would literally kill him for what he did. For all we know Trump being president might have kept him alive.


This sure sounds a lot like giving him a pass.

----------


## jmdrake

> He isn't giving him a pass, no one is saying they will forgive Trump for it. The difference is lots of people supported Trump because they thought if Clinton was president she would literally kill him for what he did. For all we know Trump being president might have kept him alive.







> This sure sounds a lot like giving him a pass.


+rep

----------


## nikcers

> This sure sounds a lot like giving him a pass.


Clinton cronies still might be trying to kill him for ruining her reputation and chance at winning in 2016. He might be in the safest place possible right now. I am not saying that this is the case but its far more likely that he would be dead if Clinton was president you can't deny that.

----------


## jmdrake

> Clinton cronies still might be trying to kill him for ruining her reputation and chance at winning in 2016. He might be in the safest place possible right now. I am not saying that this is the case but its far more likely that he would be dead if Clinton was president you can't deny that.


And the reason for re-imprisoning Chelsea Manning for not cooperating with a bogus prosecution is......?  And before you say "To protect him/her for Clinton" remember he'd been walking around free for years.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Clinton cronies still might be trying to kill him for ruining her reputation and chance at winning in 2016. He might be in the safest place possible right now. I am not saying that this is the case but its far more likely that he would be dead if Clinton was president you can't deny that.


If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas for Trumpkins.

What kind of argument is this? Did you rush into excuse mode this fast every time Obama did something horrible and explain how good it is that he didn't do something even more horrible?

When the word that Assange was to be extradited first came out, the Trumpkin line was that it was all part of a secret plan for Trump to pardon him and let him go once he got to America. That didn't happen, so now you've got this Plan B to fall back on. What's so hard about just calling a spade a spade?

This is as bad as your attempts to paint Trump as pro-2nd Amendment.

----------


## nikcers

> And the reason for re-imprisoning Chelsea Manning for not cooperating with a bogus prosecution is......?  And before you say "To protect him/her for Clinton" remember he'd been walking around free for years.


Its possible that the reason for arresting her is that she was complicit in the crimes that they extradited Assange on. I don't know if this is true but I think they have to charge Assange to have a reason to extradite him here, and that he can't pardon Assange unless he is charged with a crime. Its still a lot more probable that he would be dead if Clinton won. Even Rand couldn't publicly say that he would pardon Snowden but most of us understood the politics of the issue was too charged to speak out about, he said that Clapper should be in jail with him.

----------


## nikcers

> If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas for Trumpkins.
> 
> What kind of argument is this? Did you rush into excuse mode this fast every time Obama did something horrible and explain how good it is that he didn't do something even more horrible?
> 
> When the word that Assange was to be extradited first came out, the Trumpkin line was that it was all part of a secret plan for Trump to pardon him and let him go once he got to America. That didn't happen, so now you've got this Plan B to fall back on. What's so hard about just calling a spade a spade?
> 
> This is as bad as your attempts to paint Trump as pro-2nd Amendment.


You are a sad Mike Pence supporter. Are you going to cry if Mike Pence doesn't become president?

----------


## jmdrake

> Its possible that the reason for arresting her is that she was complicit in the crimes that they extradited Assange on.


Except the opposite is true.  Manning has already been convicted of her crimes.  In order to make up an excuse to extradite Assange they had to try to tie him to Manning's crime.  So the Trump administration made up this bvllshyt story about Assange helping Manning come up with a password to bypass military security as if Assange was some "master hacker", which he is not.  Manning decided not to lie just to avoid imprisonment.  (She took the same position that Jerome Corsi took when he said he wouldn't lie just so that Muller would have dirt on Trump).  So no.  This isn't about Manning having complicity in Assange's "crimes."  This is about made up complicity on Assange in Manning's "crimes."  Truth is treason in an empire of lies.

----------


## nikcers

> Except the opposite is true.  Manning has already been convicted of her crimes.  In order to make up an excuse to extradite Assange they had to try to tie him to Manning's crime.  So the Trump administration made up this bvllshyt story about Assange helping Manning come up with a password to bypass military security as if Assange was some "master hacker", which he is not.  Manning decided not to lie just to avoid imprisonment.  (She took the same position that Jerome Corsi took when he said he wouldn't lie just so that Muller would have dirt on Trump).  So no.  This isn't about Manning having complicity in Assange's "crimes."  This is about made up complicity on Assange in Manning's "crimes."  Truth is treason in an empire of lies.


You say the opposite is true but you claim that they needed Manning to extradite Assange which is what I said. Are you being purposely dishonest?

----------


## jmdrake

> You say the opposite is true but you claim that they needed Manning to extradite Assange which is what I said. Are you being purposely dishonest?


No.  But you are being purposefully stupid.  Again, Manning is not being charged with being complicit in Assange's crimes.  Assange is being charged with being complicit in Manning's crimes.  This is what you said moron.

_Its possible that the reason for arresting her is that she was complicit in the crimes that they extradited Assange on_

So no.  That's not possible.  Again the crime was done by Manning.  Assange is the one being charged with complicity.  Got it now or do I have to break it down to a second grade level?

----------


## nikcers

> No.  But you are being purposefully stupid.  Again, Manning is not being charged with being complicit in Assange's crimes.  Assange is being charged with being complicit in Manning's crimes.  This is what you said moron.
> 
> _Its possible that the reason for arresting her is that she was complicit in the crimes that they extradited Assange on_
> 
> So no.  That's not possible.  Again the crime was done by Manning.  Assange is the one being charged with complicity.  Got it now or do I have to break it down to a second grade level?


You just agreed with me that they needed Manning to extradite Assange. So which is it? The opposite of that is true or not?

----------


## jmdrake

> You just agreed with me that they needed Manning to extradite Assange. So which is it? The opposite of that is true or not?


Dumbass.  You said that Manning was complicit in Assange's crimes.  *THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS TRUE!*  It is Assange that is being accused of being complicit in Manning's crimes.  That is the *opposite* I am talking about moron!

----------


## nikcers

> Dumbass.  You said that Manning was complicit in Assange's crimes.  *THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS TRUE!*  It is Assange that is being accused of being complicit in Manning's crimes.  That is the *opposite* I am talking about moron!


What does the next sentence say Bernie?

----------


## jmdrake

> What does the next sentence say Bernie?

----------


## nikcers

> 





> Except the opposite is true.  In order to make up an excuse to extradite Assange they had to try to tie him to Manning's crime.





> don't know if this is true but I think they have to charge Assange to have a reason to extradite him here, and that he can't pardon Assange unless he is charged with a crime


The opposite is true, really? WHICH IS IT?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You are a sad Mike Pence supporter. Are you going to cry if Mike Pence doesn't become president?


Oh yeah, that's right. You're also the guy who wanted to be anti-Pence and pro-Trump so you decided that Trump didn't really choose Pence as his running mate and it was actually the RNC leadership that chose him and forced their choice on Trump somehow, and then you claimed that everywhere you checked said that, and it turned out that what you meant by everywhere you checked was just that you read it as a baseless claim made on RPF by some other conspiracy theoriests.

That was funny.

----------


## nikcers

> Oh yeah, that's right. You're also the guy who wanted to be anti-Pence and pro-Trump so you decided that Trump didn't really choose Pence as his running mate and it was actually the RNC leadership that chose him and forced their choice on Trump somehow, and then you claimed that everywhere you checked said that, and it turned out that what you meant by everywhere you checked was just that you read it as a baseless claim made on RPF by some other conspiracy theoriests.


The RNC pick the nominee the only reason why Trump got through there is because the narrative from the Trump camp was that the Trump people would not vote for anyone but Trump and that they would hand the election over to the democrats. Are you really saying that Mike Pence would be any better on the patriot act or Assange or Snowden? If you believe that I got a bridge I'd like to sell ya.

----------


## nikcers

Just like the DNC picks the democrat nominee, Bernie Sanders proved that last go around, which is the reason why we are even discussing Assange because we probably wouldn't even know that the DNC pick the nominee if Assange didn't leak out all of the info.

----------


## jmdrake

> The opposite is true, really? WHICH IS IT?


Convince a fool against his will he'll have the same opinion still.  Anyone with reasonable intelligence and honesty understands what I said.  That obviously excludes you.

----------


## nikcers

> Convince a fool against his will he'll have the same opinion still.  Anyone with reasonable intelligence and honesty understands what I said.  That obviously excludes you.


Are you saying that I said something differently because I said reason and you said excuse? Or are you claiming that complicit doesn't simply mean involved with others in a crime? Or are you trying to be purposely dishonest?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> The RNC pick the nominee


If by "RNC" you mean the convention, then yeah, they do. But it's a formality. They always elect the presidential candidate's choice, and that's exactly what they did for Trump. Prior to the convention Trump had already personally selected Pence as his running mate.




> Are you really saying that Mike Pence would be any better on the patriot act or Assange or Snowden?


I can't fathom what I said that you make you write this. It's like you don't even read what you reply to.

No. I think Trump and Trump's choice for VP would both be the same on those things.

----------


## nikcers

> If by "RNC" you mean the convention, then yeah, they do. But it's a formality. They always elect the presidential candidate's choice, and that's exactly what they did for Trump. Prior to the convention Trump had already personally selected Pence as his running mate.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't fathom what I said that you make you write this. It's like you don't even read what you reply to.
> 
> No. I think Trump and Trump's choice for VP would both be the same on those things.


Are you really trying to say that the DNC colludes to choose who the nominee is and the Republicans don't? Do we have to have another Seith Rich for you to pull the plank from under your eyes?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Are you really trying to say that the DNC colludes to choose who the nominee is and the Republicans don't? Do we have to have another Seith Rich for you to pull the plank from under your eyes?


There you go again. I never once mentioned the DNC.

But it's a fact that Trump chose Pence as his running mate. Is that even disputed? Do you think he only pretended that he chose Pence because someone in the RNC blackmailed him or something?

Edit:
And for that matter, since you want to bring up the DNC, what are you getting at there? Are you saying that Hillary did not choose Tim Kaine as her running mate either?

Last time, when you claimed that you looked it up and everywhere that you checked supported your claim that the RNC leadership chose the VP candidate, it turned out that your source was just anonymous people who supposedly made that assertion here at RPF. Is that still your only source?

----------


## nikcers

> There you go again. I never once mentioned the DNC.
> 
> But it's a fact that Trump chose Pence as his running mate. Is that even disputed? Do you think he only pretended that he chose Trump because someone in the RNC blackmailed him or something?


So the DNC picks the democrat nominee per the leaks but the RNC is different?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> So the DNC picks the democrat nominee per the leaks but the RNC is different?


No. In both parties it's the presidential candidate who chooses their own running mate prior to the convention. The convention then elects that VP candidate and always elects the person that their presidential nominee had already chosen.

Were you under the impression that Hillary did not choose Tim Kaine as her running mate, but that the DNC leadership chose him and somehow forced her to pretend that she chose him when she really wanted someone else?

----------


## nikcers

Tim Kaine was the DNC chair in 2011 who picked the DNC chair debbie wasserman schultz that rigged the DNC nomination for Clinton.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Tim Kaine was the DNC chair in 2011 who picked the DNC chair debbie wasserman schultz that rigged the DNC nomination for Clinton.


And when Hillary publicly chose Tim Kaine as her running mate prior to the convention, was she lying, or did she really choose him?

Likewise, when Trump publicly chose Pence as his running mate prior to the convention, was he lying, or did he really choose him?

----------


## nikcers

> And when Hillary publicly chose Tim Kaine as her running mate, was she just pretending, or did she really choose him?


HE PICKED THE DNC CHAIR THAT RIGGED THE NOMINATION SO THAT SHE WOULD BE THE NOMINEE

----------


## Superfluous Man

> HE PICKED THE DNC CHAIR THAT RIGGED THE NOMINATION SO THAT SHE WOULD BE THE NOMINEE


Is there a reason you're not answering my question?

----------


## nikcers

> Is there a reason you're not answering my question?


How is it not clear to you that Clinton picked Kaine because he directly rigged the nomination so that she would be the nominee by picking someone who would rig it? That was what Seth Rich was trying to tell us, that was something worth dying for.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> How is it not clear to you that Clinton picked Kaine because he directly rigged the nomination so that she would be the nominee by picking someone who would rig it? That was what Seth Rich was trying to tell us, that was something worth dying for.


So you agree that Clinton did pick Kaine? Then we agree, so I'm not sure why you're trying to argue about that.

Now what about Trump? When he publicly went through all the motions of having a search for a running mate, and publicly announced that he chose Pence, prior to the convention, was he lying? Or was he telling the truth like Hillary was?

----------


## nikcers

> So you agree that Clinton did pick Kaine? Then we agree, so I'm not sure why you're trying to argue about that.
> 
> Now what about Trump? When he publicly went through all the motions of having a search for a running mate, and publicly announced that he chose Pence, prior to the convention, was he lying? Or was he telling the truth like Hillary was?


No technically Kaine picked Clinton.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> No technically Kaine picked Clinton.


And you believe that the same thing happened in the GOP? Technically Pence picked Trump?

----------


## nikcers

Seth Rich told the truth which is why they killed him.

----------


## nikcers

> And you believe that the same thing happened in the GOP? Technically Pence picked Trump?


No techincally there was a huge stink with the republican nomination of Trump, there was this whole "nevertrump" movement that Trump used against them. People like Mitt Romney went on TV and said Trump was a con artist. The RNC did tell Trump who they would let be the vice president though, he had to do that otherwise they would not of let him be the Republican nominee.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> No techincally there was a huge stink in the republican nomination about Trump, there was this whole "nevertrump" movement that Trump used against them. People like Mitt Romney went on TV and said Trump was a con artist. The RNC did tell Trump who they would let be the vice president though, he had to do that otherwise they would not of let him be the Republican nominee.


So you believe that Trump didn't really want Pence, but pretended that he did because if he didn't choose Pence, somehow the RNC leaders would stop him from being the nominee even though he won all those delegates at the primaries and caucuses?

How do you suppose they would have accomplished that? And what's your evidence?

----------


## nikcers

Trump only became a political meme because the DNC put his campaign on the map with their pied piper strategy, they thought he would be the best person to run against, they even paid Russian trolls to support Trump so they could say that he is a puppet of Russia.

----------


## nikcers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yM7QwEZvKI

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Trump only became a political meme because the DNC put his campaign on the map with their pied piper strategy, they thought he would be the best person to run against, they even paid Russian trolls to support Trump so they could say that he is a puppet of Russia.


OK. How does this relate to Trump lying about choosing Pence as his running mate when he really didn't want him to be?

----------


## nikcers

> OK. How does this relate to Trump lying about choosing Pence as his running mate when he really didn't want him to be?


Did you watch the Doug Wead video?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Did you watch the Doug Wead video?


No.

----------


## Ender

> Trump only became a political meme because the DNC put his campaign on the map with their pied piper strategy, they thought he would be the best person to run against, they even paid Russian trolls to support Trump so they could say that he is a puppet of Russia.


Trump also had a meeting with the Clintons before he declared his candidacy. I've often thought that the plan was to get one of them as president & it didn't matter if it was Trump or Hillary.

----------


## nikcers

> Trump also had a meeting with the Clintons before he declared his candidacy. I've often thought that the plan was to get one of them as president & it didn't matter if it was Trump or Hillary.


Did you watch the Doug Wead video?

----------


## Ender

> Did you watch the Doug Wead video?


What does it have to do with Trump?

----------


## nikcers

> What does it have to do with Trump?


Thats a no?

----------


## dannno

> Trump also had a meeting with the Clintons before he declared his candidacy. I've often thought that the plan was to get one of them as president & it didn't matter if it was Trump or Hillary.


I'm pretty sure you thought the plan was for Trump to lose to Hillary, you just changed what you thought after you found out you were wrong. 

It might be worth listening to somebody who was right.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I'm pretty sure you thought the plan was for Trump to lose to Hillary, you just changed what you thought after you found out you were wrong.


Can you link to the post where he said that?

----------


## dannno

> Can you link to the post where he said that?


No. That was the sentiment of about 60% of the forum (including some who have subsequently warmed to him), and including most of his allies at the time. Not totally unreasonable to say "I'm pretty sure you thought" based on that. We'll see what Ender says.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> No.


Of course you can't.

----------


## nikcers

> No. That was the sentiment of about 60% of the forum (including some who have subsequently warmed to him), and including most of his allies at the time. Not totally unreasonable to say "I'm pretty sure you thought" based on that. We'll see what Ender says.


I thought that he couldn't beat Clinton based on the polling and Trumps own 2012 post mortem, Trump wasn't supposed to win though we found that out because of the "insurance policy"

----------


## dannno

> Of course you can't.


I didn't say I couldn't, I said I won't. We'll see what Ender says. They are allgedly a person of God, so they probably won't lie.

----------


## jmdrake

> Are you saying that I said something differently because I said reason and you said excuse?


You said Manning was being accused of being complicit in Assange's crimes when it's Assange being accused of being complicit in Manning's crimes.  *Huge* difference.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> And yet you'll forgive Trump for pushing for the extradition of Julian Assange, the re-imprisonment of Chelsea Manning and calling for the execution of Edward Snowden.


Who said I forgive him for those things?
I have never defended him for them and I have said over and over that he is the LEAST of all possible goods and that I would support a better option if one came along.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Actions speak louder than words.  He's not in every pro Trump thread pointing out what he doesn't like about Trump the way he is in this pro Amash thread pointing out what he doesn't like about Amash.


I don't go around pointing out all the things I don't like about Amash and I do criticize Trump for things he does that I don't like, I just don't have time to criticize all the things he does that I don't like.

The treasonous coup is one of the most important issues of our time and Amash is embarrassingly wrong about it.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Its possible that the reason for arresting her is that she was complicit in the crimes that they extradited Assange on. I don't know if this is true but I think they have to charge Assange to have a reason to extradite him here, and that he can't pardon Assange unless he is charged with a crime. Its still a lot more probable that he would be dead if Clinton won. Even Rand couldn't publicly say that he would pardon Snowden but most of us understood the politics of the issue was too charged to speak out about, he said that Clapper should be in jail with him.


I don't "give Trump a pass" on Assange yet but you are right, the UK would send Assange to Sweden for the revived rape charges if Trump pardoned him now.

----------


## Ender

> I'm pretty sure you thought the plan was for Trump to lose to Hillary, you just changed what you thought after you found out you were wrong. 
> 
> It might be worth listening to somebody who was right.


I saw the "plan" as not mattering who won- as there was no real difference in either. As I said a billion times: horse dung vs cow dung- both are $#@!.

As things progressed, it actually looked to me like the 2 of them were on the same team & that it really didn't matter who won. Either way, Hitlery would be not be indicted for the computer BS, and Trump's ego would be pampered. I have also thought that the whole Russia thing was a possible ruse- on both sides- and was carried on to take everyone's eye off the mark.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No.  But you are being purposefully stupid.  Again, Manning is not being charged with being complicit in Assange's crimes.  Assange is being charged with being complicit in Manning's crimes.  This is what you said moron.
> 
> _Its possible that the reason for arresting her is that she was complicit in the crimes that they extradited Assange on_
> 
> So no.  That's not possible.  Again the crime was done by Manning.  Assange is the one being charged with complicity.  Got it now or do I have to break it down to a second grade level?


The new actions against Manning are because he won't testify against Assange.

----------


## nikcers

> You said Manning was being accused of being complicit in Assange's crimes when it's Assange being accused of being complicit in Manning's crimes.  *Huge* difference.


I guess I would be a bad lawyer I thought the word meant that both parties participated in the crime for example bank robbery with Bonnie and Clyde who did the crime both parties participated.

----------


## jmdrake

> The new actions against Manning are because he won't testify against Assange.


Yes.  But they wanted Manning to testify to what?  They wanted to her to testify that Assange was complicit in her crime.  The trumped up lie (no pun intended) is that Assange was complicit by giving Manning assistance in cracking a password.  So Manning already served time for a "crime", Assange was being charged with complicity in Manning's crime, they wanted Manning to testi*lie* about that, Manning refused to lie, Manning got sent back to prison.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't go around pointing out all the things I don't like about Amash and I do criticize Trump for things he does that I don't like, I just don't have time to criticize all the things he does that I don't like.
> 
> The treasonous coup is one of the most important issues of our time and Amash is embarrassingly wrong about it.


Except in this case you brought up NSA spying on Trump as a reason to be against Amash when Trump supports NSA spying.  That's a bit hypocritical.

----------


## Origanalist

> I don't go around pointing out all the things I don't like about Amash and I do criticize Trump for things he does that I don't like,* I just don't have time to criticize all the things he does that I don't like.*
> 
> The treasonous coup is one of the most important issues of our time and Amash is embarrassingly wrong about it.


Yes, we can all see you're very pressed for time.

----------


## jmdrake

> I guess I would be a bad lawyer I thought the word meant that both parties participated in the crime for example bank robbery with Bonnie and Clyde who did the crime both parties participated.


Okay.  Let's go with the two bank robber analogy.  Let's say one bank robber Billybob, got arrested, convicted, served his sentence and was released.  The other bank robber, Lukeduke, got away.  A third associate, Jimbob, wasn't involved at all.  Normally Billybob couldn't be tried again for the same bank robbery.  That would be double jeopardy.  But say if the government said "Hey, we think Jimbob was involved and we want you to testify against him."  If Billybob say "No way.  He wasn't even in the country.  I'm not going to lie." and the government said "If you don't we'll put you in jail for contempt of court."  Because Billybob has already served his time for the bank robbery, the only legal jeopardy he has is for his refusal to testify.  

Now, consider the case of Dr. Jerome Corsi and Donald Trump.  Dr. Corsi was never charged with any crime, but he was in legal jeopardy for refusing to testi*lie* about Trump.  It's a double edged sword.  If he refused to testify, they would get him for contempt of court.  If he didn't say what they wanted, they would have accused him of lying to federal investigators, which is what they got Michael Flynn on.  Manning is in exactly the same position as Corsi.

----------


## nikcers

> Okay.  Let's go with the two bank robber analogy.  Let's say one bank robber Billybob, got arrested, convicted, served his sentence and was released.  The other bank robber, Lukeduke, got away.  A third associate, Jimbob, wasn't involved at all.  Normally Billybob couldn't be tried again for the same bank robbery.  That would be double jeopardy.  But say if the government said "Hey, we think Jimbob was involved and we want you to testify against him."  If Billybob say "No way.  He wasn't even in the country.  I'm not going to lie." and the government said "If you don't we'll put you in jail for contempt of court."  Because Billybob has already served his time for the bank robbery, the only legal jeopardy he has is for his refusal to testify.  
> 
> Now, consider the case of Dr. Jerome Corsi and Donald Trump.  Dr. Corsi was never charged with any crime, but he was in legal jeopardy for refusing to testi*lie* about Trump.  It's a double edged sword.  If he refused to testify, they would get him for contempt of court.  If he didn't say what they wanted, they would have accused him of lying to federal investigators, which is what they got Michael Flynn on.  Manning is in exactly the same position as Corsi.


I already implied you were right, you don't have to make me feel even more stupid.

----------


## jmdrake

> I already implied you were right, you don't have to make me feel even more stupid.


Sorry.  Not my intent this time.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Yes.  But they wanted Manning to testify to what?  They wanted to her to testify that Assange was complicit in her crime.  The trumped up lie (no pun intended) is that Assange was complicit by giving Manning assistance in cracking a password.  So Manning already served time for a "crime", Assange was being charged with complicity in Manning's crime, they wanted Manning to testi*lie* about that, Manning refused to lie, Manning got sent back to prison.


So Manning is being attacked for "complicity in Assanges complicity in Manning's crimes".

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Yes, we can all see you're very pressed for time.


I get complaints that I post too much and now I get complaints that I don't post enough?

Swordsmyth Derangement Syndrome.

----------


## jmdrake

> So Manning is being attacked for "complicity in Assanges complicity in Manning's crimes".


LOL.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Except in this case you brought up NSA spying on Trump as a reason to be against Amash when Trump supports NSA spying.  That's a bit hypocritical.


How?
I oppose the NSA and the CIA and the FBI and the rest of the intelligence community illegally spying on anyone, I'm not Trump and I'm not responsible for his actions.
Amash supports the illegal investigation and wants to help it succeed by twisting the facts to support impeachment because Trump is the target, that's hypocritical.

----------


## jmdrake

> How?
> I oppose the NSA and the CIA and the FBI and the rest of the intelligence community illegally spying on anyone, I'm not Trump and I'm not responsible for his actions.
> Amash supports the illegal investigation and wants to help it succeed by twisting the facts to support impeachment because Trump is the target, that's hypocritical.


What I said stands on its on.  Someone posted something positive about Amash and you criticized him for something you did not criticize Trump for in this thread.  And if Amash thinks the illegal investigation turned up something impeachable then the illegal investigation can be dealt with separately.  Again, if an illegal investigation found credible evidence of Trump having child porn it wouldn't matter to me that the investigation was illegal.  I'd still want him impeached.  This isn't a criminal matter where "fruit from a poisonous tree" isn't allowed in court.  Impeachment is political.  But again, I don't think Trump did anything that I would impeach him for doing.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, we can all see you're very pressed for time.





> I get complaints that I post too much and now I get complaints that I don't post enough?
> 
> Swordsmyth Derangement Syndrome.


Your sarcasm meter be broken.

----------


## fcreature

> The treasonous coup is one of the most important issues of our time and Amash is embarrassingly wrong about it.


Not "one of". Its THE most important issue of our time. Period. I suspect the naysayers on this forum have not been paying any attention to the case, other than what the fake news media and the Democratic talking points say.

Amash read the report, and decided Trump obstructed based solely on that. Perhaps he should actually educate himself on the case outside of the (proven) lies within the Weissman report. Then he may actually know what the hell it is he's talking about.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> What I said stands on its on.  Someone posted something positive about Amash and you criticized him for something you did not criticize Trump for in this thread.


Maybe because this thread is about Amash and not about Trump.





> And if Amash thinks the illegal investigation turned up something impeachable then the illegal investigation can be dealt with separately.  Again, if an illegal investigation found credible evidence of Trump having child porn it wouldn't matter to me that the investigation was illegal.  I'd still want him impeached.  This isn't a criminal matter where "fruit from a poisonous tree" isn't allowed in court.  Impeachment is political.  But again, I don't think Trump did anything that I would impeach him for doing.


That is a myth, Congress is bound by the Constitution regarding impeachment, Trump has all the same rights as a non-politician and if the opposition is allowed to use the fruit of a poisonous tree you will encourage much more injustice and tyranny than whatever crime might go unpunished that was discovered in an illegal investigation.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Not "one of". Its THE most important issue of our time. Period. I suspect the naysayers on this forum have not been paying any attention to the case, other than what the fake news media and the Democratic talking points say.
> 
> Amash read the report, and decided Trump obstructed based solely on that. Perhaps he should actually educate himself on the case outside of the (proven) lies within the Weissman report. Then he may actually know what the hell it is he's talking about.


Amash read the report and twisted it to make obstruction out of nothing.
More education would be twisted in the same way somehow because Amash wants impeachment and he doesn't care about the facts.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Your sarcasm meter be broken.


The sarcasm is what makes it a concurring complaint that I don't post more.

----------


## Origanalist

> Not "one of". Its THE most important issue of our time. Period.


More important than deviants and progressive slime infesting our schools?  More important that than whole generations growing up thinking the government is all powerful and omnipresent and that's how it should be? I can think of a lot of things more important than the democrats latest dirty tricks. This stuff is hardly new.

----------


## fcreature

> More important than deviants and progressive slime infesting our schools?  More important that than whole generations growing up thinking the government is all powerful and omnipresent and that's how it should be? I can think of a lot of things more important than the democrats latest dirty tricks. This stuff is hardly new.


I can tell you aren't paying attention based on your description of this being "democrats latest dirty trick". This is so far beyond that. And certainly more important than both the items you listed above.

----------


## Origanalist

> I can tell you aren't paying attention based on your description of this being "democrats latest dirty trick". This is so far beyond that. And certainly more important than both the items you listed above.


Maybe in your world. And no, it's not "so far beyond that". Politics has been dirty as hell as long as I've been alive, have you forgotten they assassinated Kennedy? Tried to kill Reagan?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> More important than deviants and progressive slime infesting our schools?  More important that than whole generations growing up thinking the government is all powerful and omnipresent and that's how it should be? I can think of a lot of things more important than the democrats latest dirty tricks. This stuff is hardly new.


It is connected to all those things, if the Demoncrats get away with the treasonous coup they will be emboldened to go full retard about everything.
And this is NOT business as usual.

----------


## Origanalist

> It is connected to all those things, if the Demoncrats get away with the treasonous coup they will be emboldened to go full retard about everything.
> And this is NOT business as usual.


Lol, and people are saying I haven't been paying attention.

----------


## devil21

> Maybe in your world. And no, it's not "so far beyond that". Politics has been dirty as hell as long as I've been alive, have you forgotten they assassinated Kennedy? Tried to kill Reagan?


And those were actually _real_, not today's reality show production "deep state coup" nonsense where the main players were all 9/11 conspirators, Bush neocons and swamp insiders.  The notion of FBI Director Mueller going "head to head" with NYC Mayor Giuliani is downright comical.  But of course people are dumb and have short memories.  

I'm pretty sure the only reason Linda McMahon was appointed to the cabinet was so that she could direct this WWE production from the inside, just like she directs a Wrestlemania production.

----------


## UWDude

> But of course people are dumb


LOL

RUSSIA!!

----------


## devil21

Oh yeah, thanks for the reminder to post the real Russia background, not the fake one.

Part 1
https://www.conspiracyschool.com/blo...igarchs-part-i

Part 2
https://www.conspiracyschool.com/blo...garchs-part-ii

A great website overall that's worth a browse for anyone that wants real news.

----------


## UWDude

> Oh yeah, thanks for the reminder to post the real Russia background, not the fake one.
> 
> Part 1
> https://www.conspiracyschool.com/blo...igarchs-part-i
> 
> Part 2
> https://www.conspiracyschool.com/blo...garchs-part-ii
> 
> A great website overall that's worth a browse for anyone that wants real news.


Justin Arussia is at it again.

----------


## jmdrake

> The sarcasm is what makes it a concurring complaint that I don't post more.


Originalist wasn't complaining that you don't post more.  He (she?) was saying you have time to post incessantly defending Trump even to the point of coming into a thread about something good Justin Amash did just to bash Amash for the sake of Trump.

----------


## jmdrake

> That is a myth, Congress is bound by the Constitution regarding impeachment, Trump has all the same rights as a non-politician and if the opposition is allowed to use the fruit of a poisonous tree you will encourage much more injustice and tyranny than whatever crime might go unpunished that was discovered in an illegal investigation.


It's not a myth.  Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.  Nobody can be put in prison or fined as a result of impeachment.  The only thing that can happen to them is that they are removed from office.  Impeachment is a political process and that cuts both ways.  Because impeachment is a political process, Bill Clinton could not be removed even though everybody knows he committed the crime of perjury.  Similarly Trump cannot be removed unless 2/3rds of the Senate votes to have him removed and that ain't happening.

Also, to be honest the "fruit from a poisonous tree" doctrine doesn't apply to obstruction.  That's a crime committed *after* the start of an investigation.  In a regular criminal proceeding if police found evidence against you from a bogus investigation (such as actual evidence of collusion with the Russians in witness tampering) *that* evidence would be squashed.  But evidence that you tampered with witnesses during the investigation would not be squashed.  So...technically in a real criminal proceeding, Trump could be held liable for obstruction even based on a phony FISA warrant.  But, like I said, this isn't really a criminal proceeding.

----------


## nikcers

> Originalist wasn't complaining that you don't post more.  He (she?) was saying you have time to post incessantly defending Trump even to the point of coming into a thread about something good Justin Amash did just to bash Amash for the sake of Trump.


Why would anyone have time to promote their political enemies by attacking their opposition? This is like running the football into the opposite direction from the endzone. All this does is amplify Bernie Sanders message of socialism and anyone who does is either politically stupid or is purposely sowing discord within the Republican party so that the socialist message wins and takes over the country.

----------


## jmdrake

> Why would anyone have time to promote their political enemies by attacking their opposition? This is like running the football into the opposite direction from the endzone. All this does is amplify Bernie Sanders message of socialism and anyone who does is either politically stupid or is purposely sowing discord within the Republican party so that the socialist message wins and takes over the country.


I haven't the foggiest idea of what you are attempting to say.  And I suspect you don't either.

----------


## nikcers

> I haven't the foggiest idea of what you are attempting to say.  And I suspect you don't either.


There is a political fire spreading in America and you are throwing gasoline on it.

----------


## jmdrake

> There is a political fire spreading in America and you are throwing gasoline on it.


Like I said.  You don't have the foggiest idea of what you are attempting to say.  That is unless you are just a pathological liar.

----------


## nikcers

> Like I said.  You don't have the foggiest idea of what you are attempting to say.  That is unless you are just a pathological liar.


The left is attacking capitalism with the crony capitalism they created and you spend more time derailing the only group of people who are stopping their cancer from spreading even farther. Already 4 out of 10 Americans want socialized medicine because of the leftist policies that created this supply and demand imbalance and you are helping their campaign win by constantly attacking their political opposition. You are throwing gasoline on the fire, you are either being purposely dishonest or you are basically Bernie Sanders.

----------


## jmdrake

> You are a real piece of $#@! you know that right.


Really?  You falsely accuse me of being like Bernie Sanders for standing up to the second amendment, lying about the legal technicalities of Manning / Assange when you were later forced to admit you didn't know what the hell you were talking about, and now "throwing gasoline on a political fire" for my simply defending one of the most libertarian members of congress, and *I* am the "mean one."  Okay.  Whatever dude.  SwordSmyth is often wrong but at least he has some intellect.  You are low IQ and a crybaby on top of it.

----------


## nikcers

> Really?  You falsely accuse me of being like Bernie Sanders for standing up to the second amendment, lying about the legal technicalities of Manning / Assange when you were later forced to admit you didn't know what the hell you were talking about, and now "throwing gasoline on a political fire" for my simply defending one of the most libertarian members of congress, and *I* am the "mean one."  Okay.  Whatever dude.  SwordSmyth is often wrong but at least he has some intellect.  You are low IQ and a crybaby on top of it.


You are basically Bernie Sanders if you help him and his ideology win.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> The left is attacking capitalism with the crony capitalism they created and you spend more time derailing the only group of people who are stopping their cancer from spreading even farther. Already 4 out of 10 Americans want socialized medicine because of the leftist policies that created this supply and demand imbalance and you are helping their campaign win by constantly attacking their political opposition. You are throwing gasoline on the fire, you are either being purposely dishonest or you are basically Bernie Sanders.


Both parties are equally complicit in promoting crony capitalism. Donald Trump is an unabashed thoroughgoing promoter of it from both sides, as a recipient of it in business and as a dealer in it in government. He himself doesn't even pretend otherwise. Justin Amash's entire career in Congress has been working to stop it. He has very few allies and many enemies. You are giving aid to his enemies.

----------


## jmdrake

Now I'll respond to the rest of your garbage post.




> The left is attacking capitalism with the crony capitalism they created and you spend more time derailing the only group of people who are stopping their cancer from spreading even farther.


Donald Trump is the epitome of crony capitalism and he is protecting and defending it.  He "repealed" NAFTA?  Do you read his replacement bill?




> Already 4 out of 10 Americans want socialized medicine because of the leftist policies that created this supply and demand imbalance and you are helping their campaign win by constantly attacking their political opposition.


In this thread, $#@!, I am defending Justin Amash.  Last time I checked he was against socialized Medicine.




> You are throwing gasoline on the fire, you are either being purposely dishonest or you are basically Bernie Sanders.


Bernie Sanders supports Donald Trump's gun grabbing jackass.  By defending that *you are the forum Bernie Sanders*.  Except....Bernie isn't a moron and a crybaby like you.  You're more of that CNN reporter that whined and complained when Trump took away his press pass.

----------


## jmdrake

> You are basically Bernie Sanders if you help him and his ideology win.


You are the one that defended Trump's bumpfire stock band jackass.  That makes you in line with Bernie Sanders.

----------


## jmdrake

@nikcers Someone who would defend a bumpfire stock ban because it "takes away democratic talking points" has no business calling himself a patriot.




> The bump stock ban is designed to derail the democrats talking point, its a piece of $#@! that is not even necessary and not even effective, its designed to shut people up when they cry to him about gun violence.

----------


## nikcers

> Both parties are equally complicit in promoting crony capitalism. Donald Trump is an unabashed thoroughgoing promoter of it from both sides, as a recipient of it in business and as a dealer in it in government. He himself doesn't even pretend otherwise. Justin Amash's entire career in Congress has been working to stop it. He has very few allies and many enemies. You are giving aid to his enemies.


I was a huge defender of Justin Amash until he wiped his ass with the fourth amendment by supporting impeachment over an abuse of the fourth amendment. I would of helped him run for re-election and donated to his campaign if he didn't openly encourage FISA abuses against polical opponents of the deepstate by giving this report credibility. I was a huge fan of JA until he did this, it was a gutpunch to me when he did this, I regret ever supporting him.

----------


## nikcers

> @Nickers Someone who would defend a bumpfire stock ban because it "takes away democratic talking points" has no business calling himself a patriot.


Name one socialist country that has gun rights.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I was a huge defender of Justin Amash until he wiped his ass with the fourth amendment by supporting impeachment over an abuse of the fourth amendment. I would of helped him run for re-election and donated to his campaign if he didn't openly encourage FISA abuses against polical opponents of the deepstate by giving this report credibility. I was a huge fan of JA until he did this, it was a gutpunch to me when he did this, I regret ever supporting him.


Please provide a quote from Amash supporting FISA abuses or supporting impeachment over abuse of the 4th Amendment.

----------


## nikcers

> Please provide a quote from Amash supporting FISA abuses or supporting impeachment over abuse of the 4th Amendment.


What's Justin Amash's position on impeachment of Trump over the Mueller report? I shouldn't have to prove your point for you.

----------


## jmdrake

> I was a huge defender of Justin Amash until he wiped his ass with the fourth amendment by supporting impeachment over an abuse of the fourth amendment. I would of helped him run for re-election and donated to his campaign if he didn't openly encourage FISA abuses against polical opponents of the deepstate by giving this report credibility. I was a huge fan of JA until he did this, it was a gutpunch to me when he did this, I regret ever supporting him.


These are two separate issues.  Like I told @Swordsmyth.

_Also, to be honest the "fruit from a poisonous tree" doctrine doesn't apply to obstruction. That's a crime committed after the start of an investigation. In a regular criminal proceeding if police found evidence against you from a bogus investigation (such as actual evidence of collusion with the Russians in witness tampering) that evidence would be squashed. But evidence that you tampered with witnesses during the investigation would not be squashed. So...technically in a real criminal proceeding, Trump could be held liable for obstruction even based on a phony FISA warrant. But, like I said, this isn't really a criminal proceeding._

If the government goes after you without probable cause, any evidence of a crime committed *prior* to the start of the investigation that they uncover as a result of the 4th amendment violation is not admissible.  But if you commit *new* crimes in an effort to stymie the investigation, those can be prosecuted without violating the 4th amendment.  That said, Donald Trump has "wiped his ass" on the 4th amendment by going after Assange and Manning, among other things, and he's "wiped his ass" on the second amendment over the bumpfire stock ban and you've defended him and called those who stand up against Trump's violations of the 4th and 2nd amendment "Bernie Sanders."  By your own measure you are the biggest Bernie Sanders on the forum.

----------


## jmdrake

> Name one socialist country that has gun rights.


And ^this is proof that you, Nikcers, are the socialist.  You defended Trump's bumpfire stock ban even though you know that gun control is a hallmark of socialism.

----------


## nikcers

> These are two separate issues.  Like I told @Swordsmyth.
> 
> _Also, to be honest the "fruit from a poisonous tree" doctrine doesn't apply to obstruction. That's a crime committed after the start of an investigation. In a regular criminal proceeding if police found evidence against you from a bogus investigation (such as actual evidence of collusion with the Russians in witness tampering) that evidence would be squashed. But evidence that you tampered with witnesses during the investigation would not be squashed. So...technically in a real criminal proceeding, Trump could be held liable for obstruction even based on a phony FISA warrant. But, like I said, this isn't really a criminal proceeding._
> 
> If the government goes after you without probable cause, any evidence of a crime committed *prior* to the start of the investigation that they uncover as a result of the 4th amendment violation is not admissible.  But if you commit *new* crimes in an effort to stymie the investigation, those can be prosecuted without violating the 4th amendment.  That said, Donald Trump has "wiped his ass" on the 4th amendment by going after Assange and Manning, among other things, and he's "wiped his ass" on the second amendment over the bumpfire stock ban and you've defended him and called those who stand up against Trump's violations of the 4th and 2nd amendment "Bernie Sanders."  By your own measure you are the biggest Bernie Sanders on the forum.


If you support the democrats insurance policy against losing you are effectively supporting the democrats and encouraging them to do this again. I don't give a $#@! why you justify it, you are wrong.

----------


## jmdrake

> If you support the democrats insurance policy against losing you are effectively supporting the democrats and encouraging them to do this again. I don't give a $#@! why you justify it, you are wrong.


You don't give a crap about the constitution?  I know.  You have shown that by your *disgusting socialist defense of Donald Trump's assault on the second amendment*!

----------


## nikcers

> And ^this is proof that you, Nikcers, are the socialist.  You defended Trump's bumpfire stock ban even though you know that gun control is a hallmark of socialism.


You don't even deny that hurting Trumps chance at winning the election helps the democratic socialist platform win the election?

----------


## nikcers

> You don't give a crap about the constitution?  I know.  You have shown that by your *disgusting socialist defense of Donald Trump's assault on the second amendment*!


So you think that helping the democrats win by attacking their opposition doesn't help the democrats win? Are you stupid?

----------


## jmdrake

> You don't even deny that hurting Trumps chance at winning the election helps the democratic socialist platform win the election?


You don't deny that the 2nd amendment is our last, best defense against tyranny?  You would sacrifice the 2nd amendment on the alter of bootlicking for Donald Trump?  You are that much of a coward?

----------


## jmdrake

> So you think that helping the democrats win by attacking their opposition doesn't help the democrats win? Are you stupid?


You have already admitted that I am more intelligent than you.  So if I'm stupid....

----------


## nikcers

> You don't deny that the 2nd amendment is our last, best defense against tyranny?  You would sacrifice the 2nd amendment on the alter of bootlicking for Donald Trump?  You are that much of a coward?


No the best defense against tyranny is not to support the 4 out of 10 Americans that want to install tyranny by attacking their opposition.

----------


## nikcers

> You have already admitted that I am more intelligent than you.  So if I'm stupid....


No i admited that you know more about legal jargon than I do. You are more educated than I am at legal jargon, education does not equal intelligence.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> What's Justin Amash's position on impeachment of Trump over the Mueller report? I shouldn't have to prove your point for you.


So you haven't been able to find a quote then?

Maybe you should refrain from accusing him of things without evidence to support your accusation.

----------


## nikcers

> So you haven't been able to find a quote then?
> 
> Maybe you should refrain from accusing him of things without evidence to support your accusation.


So you can't prove your own argument? Maybe you should shut up than.

----------


## jmdrake

> No the best defense against tyranny is not to support the 4 out of 10 Americans that want to install tyranny by attacking their opposition.


Justin Amash is in more of an opponent to tyranny than is Donald Trump.  That said, your infantile, churlish, retarded "We can't criticize Trump for anything he does because...the democrats" position isn't shared by anyone else.  It's not shared by @AntiFederalist.  It's not shared by @Swordsmyth.  And your position is just....stupid.  There is no independent out there who's going to say "Hmmmm......I like Trump better than the democrats....but I'm going to vote for Kamala Harris because of the bumpfire stock ban."  That's not going to happen. If you had the brains of that chicken in the picture in your profile you would know that.  Now, what can happen if Trump doesn't get pushback on the bumpfire stock ban?  He could say "Hmmmm....I might win over a few more people who support gun control if I go *further* to the left on this issue."  So..the betrayal continues.

----------


## jmdrake

> Please provide a quote from Amash supporting FISA abuses or supporting impeachment over abuse of the 4th Amendment.





> These are two separate issues.  Like I told @Swordsmyth.
> 
> _Also, to be honest the "fruit from a poisonous tree" doctrine doesn't apply to obstruction. That's a crime committed after the start of an investigation. In a regular criminal proceeding if police found evidence against you from a bogus investigation (such as actual evidence of collusion with the Russians in witness tampering) that evidence would be squashed. But evidence that you tampered with witnesses during the investigation would not be squashed. So...technically in a real criminal proceeding, Trump could be held liable for obstruction even based on a phony FISA warrant. But, like I said, this isn't really a criminal proceeding._
> 
> If the government goes after you without probable cause, any evidence of a crime committed *prior* to the start of the investigation that they uncover as a result of the 4th amendment violation is not admissible.  But if you commit *new* crimes in an effort to stymie the investigation, those can be prosecuted without violating the 4th amendment.  That said, Donald Trump has "wiped his ass" on the 4th amendment by going after Assange and Manning, among other things, and he's "wiped his ass" on the second amendment over the bumpfire stock ban and you've defended him and called those who stand up against Trump's violations of the 4th and 2nd amendment "Bernie Sanders."  By your own measure you are the biggest Bernie Sanders on the forum.





> So you haven't been able to find a quote then?
> 
> Maybe you should refrain from accusing him of things without evidence to support your accusation.





> So you can't prove your own argument? Maybe you should shut up than.


I already proved Superflous Man's argument and you said you didn't care about the constitution.

----------


## nikcers

> Justin Amash is in more of an opponent to tyranny than is Donald Trump.  That said, your infantile, churlish, retarded "We can't criticize Trump for anything he does because...the democrats" position isn't shared by anyone else.  It's not shared by @AntiFederalist.  It's not shared by @Swordsmyth.  And your position is just....stupid.  There is no independent out there who's going to say "Hmmmm......I like Trump better than the democrats....but I'm going to vote for Kamala Harris because of the bumpfire stock ban."  That's not going to happen. If you had the brains of that chicken in the picture in your profile you would know that.  Now, what can happen if Trump doesn't get pushback on the bumpfire stock ban?  He could say "Hmmmm....I might win over a few more people who support gun control if I go *further* to the left on this issue."  So..the betrayal continues.


Justin Amash couldn't even win the presidency so how could he ever be more of an opponent to tyranny than Trump?

----------


## nikcers

> I already proved Superflous Man's argument and you said you didn't care about the constitution.


Really so you have a quote or statement from JA that says he doesn't support impeachment of Trump over the Mueller report? Or are you just lying too?

----------


## jmdrake

> I already implied you were right, *you don't have to make me feel even more stupid.*





> No i admited that you know more about legal jargon than I do. You are more educated than I am at legal jargon, education does not equal intelligence.

----------


## jmdrake

> Really so you have a quote or statement from JA that says he doesn't support impeachment of Trump over the Mueller report? Or are you just lying too?


I already explained that one can be against the unconstitutional way the investigation started and still support impeachment for crimes committed after the investigation and with the intent of thwarting the investigation.  That you are too stupid to understand the "legal jargon" doesn't make me a liar.

----------


## nikcers

> 


its a figure of speech, are you even American? Usually only non Americans don't understand figures of speech.

----------


## jmdrake

> its a figure of speech, are you even American? Usually only non Americans don't understand figures of speech.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> So you can't prove your own argument? Maybe you should shut up than.


My claim is that you are accusing Amash of supporting 4th Amendment violations and FISA abuses without any evidence for your charge. Since you have already proven that for me, I can rest my case.

What I don't get is why you even keep saying it, given that you obviously don't even have any reason to believe it's true.

Is it because you're just mindlessly repeating what some other Trumpkin told you to think? We have a lot of that around here.

----------


## nikcers

> I already explained that one can be against the unconstitutional way the investigation started and still support impeachment for crimes committed after the investigation and with the intent of thwarting the investigation.  That you are too stupid to understand the "legal jargon" doesn't make me a liar.


You actually believe the contents of the report are true thats the worst aspect of your whole opinion on this, and if that is his opinion he deserves to lose his seat. Do you believe Iran is behind the attack on those tankers too?

----------


## nikcers

> My claim is that you are accusing Amash of supporting 4th Amendment violations and FISA abuses without any evidence for your charge. Since you have already proven that for me, I can rest my case.
> 
> What I don't get is why you even keep saying it, given that you obviously don't even have any reason to believe it's true.
> 
> Is it because you're just mindlessly repeating what some other Trumpkin told you to think? We have a lot of that around here.


This is Rand Paul's opinion, its not a Trumpkin opinon, this is the liberty position.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> This is Rand Paul's opinion, its not a Trumpkin opinon, this is the liberty position.


Please provide a quote from Rand accusing Amash of supporting 4th Amendment violations or FISA abuses.

----------


## nikcers

Why do you call me a Trumpkin when I am clearly a Rand Paulbot?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Why do you call me a Trumpkin when I am clearly a Rand Paulbot?


That is not clear to me at all. But go back and reread what I said. I didn't actually call you a Trumpkin. I gave you a chance to prove whether you were or not, and so far, you're not making a good case that you aren't.

----------


## jmdrake

> its a figure of speech, are you even American? Usually only non Americans don't understand figures of speech.


Part of intelligence is knowing what you don't know.  You keep trying to delve into arguing "legal jargon" with someone who knows the law, and yes the constitution is a *legal document* more than you do.  Rather than trying to actually understand the argument, you resort to the most inane ad hominems you can come up with.  I'm a "liar" or a "Bernie Sanders supporter" or just "mean" because I happen to know what I'm talking about *and you don't*.  You are parroting talking points that you clearly have know idea what they actually mean and you think by repeating them often enough and with enough vigor, vitality and venom you can somehow make your false arguments true.  Newsflash, they're still false.   

One more time, if the police raid your home based on a fake warrant, whatever they find while executing that warrant is inadmissible.  But that doesn't give you a blanket license to tamper with witnesses or do other obstructions of justice.  If you do, you can be prosecuted and that is *not* a fourth amendment violation.  And for the umpteenth time, I do not support impeachment.  But this claim that Amash has somehow gone against the 4th amendment because he correctly sees this as two different issues is ridiculous.

----------


## jmdrake

> You actually believe the contents of the report are true thats the worst aspect of your whole opinion on this, and if that is his opinion he deserves to lose his seat. Do you believe Iran is behind the attack on those tankers too?


I already said I don't support impeachment.  I haven't even bothered reading the freaking Muller report.  I'm simply explaining to you how the 4th amendment actually works.  You don't understand "legal jargon" remember?

----------


## jmdrake

> Why do you call me a Trumpkin when I am clearly a Rand Paulbot?


Rand Paul doesn't support the bumpfire stock ban nor think it was justified to "take away a democratic talking point."

----------


## nikcers

“I thought most Republicans knew that this was a witch hunt and the witch hunt is over”
-Rand Paul 

RAND PAUL: Libertarians like myself for a long time said the intelligence community has too much power. We're very concerned that the CIA or FBI could be investigating Americans for political purposes. That has long been our complaint. I don't understand a libertarian who would take the investigation and say we should pursue it and impeach the president.

----------


## nikcers

> Part of intelligence is knowing what you don't know.  You keep trying to delve into arguing "legal jargon" with someone who knows the law, and yes the constitution is a *legal document* more than you do.  Rather than trying to actually understand the argument, you resort to the most inane ad hominems you can come up with.  I'm a "liar" or a "Bernie Sanders supporter" or just "mean" because I happen to know what I'm talking about *and you don't*.  You are parroting talking points that you clearly have know idea what they actually mean and you think by repeating them often enough and with enough vigor, vitality and venom you can somehow make your false arguments true.  Newsflash, they're still false.   
> 
> One more time, if the police raid your home based on a fake warrant, whatever they find while executing that warrant is inadmissible.  But that doesn't give you a blanket license to tamper with witnesses or do other obstructions of justice.  If you do, you can be prosecuted and that is *not* a fourth amendment violation.  And for the umpteenth time, I do not support impeachment.  But this claim that Amash has somehow gone against the 4th amendment because he correctly sees this as two different issues is ridiculous.


You can't know what you don't know. People that are smart don't even think they are smart they think everyone is as smart as they are.

----------


## jmdrake

> “I thought most Republicans knew that this was a witch hunt and the witch hunt is over”
> -Rand Paul 
> 
> RAND PAUL: Libertarians like myself for a long time said the intelligence community has too much power. We're very concerned that the CIA or FBI could be investigating Americans for political purposes. That has long been our complaint. I don't understand a libertarian who would take the investigation and say we should pursue it and impeach the president.


Does that mean you will stand with Rand against Trump trying to use emergency powers for the border wall?  I mean you *are* and Paulbot and not a Trumpbot right?  

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-...cy-declaration
_en. Rand Paul: I support President Trump, but I can't support this National Emergency Declaration
Sen. Rand Paul By Sen. Rand Paul | Fox News
Facebook
Twitter
Flipboard
Comments
Print
Email

Sen. Rand Paul says he'll vote to block Trump's border emergency
Congress poised to reject President Trump's national emergency declaration; Rich Edson reports.

In September of 2014,  I had these words to say: "The president acts like he's a king. He ignores the Constitution.  He arrogantly says, 'If Congress will not act, then I must.'

Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.”


A Message from Zapier

Connect Salesforce + Shopify in minutes
In a matter of minutes and without a single line of code, Zapier allows you to connect Salesforce and Shopify. Are you ready to find your productivity superpowers?

I would literally lose my political soul if I decided to treat President Trump different than President Obama. (Although, I’ll note, not one Democrat criticized Obama for his executive orders.)

I support President Trump. I supported his fight to get funding for the wall from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I share his view that we need more and better border security.

However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.

Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.

NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, 14 OTHER STATES SUE TRUMP IN 9TH CIRCUIT OVER EMERGENCY DECLARATION

I was against foreign aid and foreign intervention without a true national security threat — under Republicans and Democrats.

I’ve stood up and voted against budgets that pile up endless debt and borrow too much — under Republicans and Democrats.

I will stand up for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the system of checks and balances we have — under Republicans and Democrats.

Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.

There are really two questions involved in the decision about emergency funding. First, does statutory law allow for the president’s emergency orders, and, second, does the Constitution permit these emergency orders?  As far as the statute goes, the answer is maybe — although no president has previously used emergency powers to spend money denied by Congress, and it was clearly not intended to do that.

But there is a much larger question: the question of whether or not this power and therefore this action are constitutional. With regard to the Constitution, the Supreme Court made it very clear in Youngstown Steel in 1952, in a case that is being closely reexamined in the discussion of executive power.  In Youngstown, the Court ruled that there are three kinds of executive order: orders that carry out an expressly voiced congressional position, orders where Congress’ will is unclear, and, finally, orders clearly opposed to the will of Congress.

To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation.  In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security.  It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers.  Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress.  This turns that principle on its head.

I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready.  That was wrong.  Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama.  They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight.

Some are attempting to say that there isn’t a good analogy between President Obama’s orders or the Youngstown case. I disagree. Not only are the issues similar, but I think Youngstown Steel implications are even more profound in the case of emergency appropriations. We spent the last two months debating how much money should be spent on a wall, and Congress came to a clear conclusion: $1.3 billion. Without question, the president’s order for more wall money contradicts the will of Congress and will, in all likelihood, be struck down by the Supreme Court.

In fact, I think the president’s own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Regardless, I must vote how my principles dictate. My oath is to the Constitution, not to any man or political party. I stand with the president often, and I do so with a loud voice. Today, I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits. I understand his frustration. Dealing with Congress can be pretty difficult sometimes. But Congress appropriates money, and his only constitutional recourse, if he does not like the amount they appropriate, is to veto the bill.

I look forward to working for a constitutional way to deal with our border security issue._

----------


## nikcers

> Does that mean you will stand with Rand against Trump trying to use emergency powers for the border wall?  I mean you *are* and Paulbot and not a Trumpbot right?  
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-...cy-declaration
> _en. Rand Paul: I support President Trump, but I can't support this National Emergency Declaration
> Sen. Rand Paul By Sen. Rand Paul | Fox News
> Facebook
> Twitter
> Flipboard
> Comments
> ...


I've supported Rand every time he has said that the executive branch has abused its power, only thing I commented on when he said that was he will get attacked for saying this because people voted for Trump because he promised to fix the immigration problem and it was the most important thing to them.

----------


## jmdrake

> I've supported Rand every time he has said that the executive branch has abused its power, only thing I commented on when he said that was he will get attacked for saying this because people voted for Trump because he promised to fix the immigration problem and it was the most important thing to them.


Okay.  So we can all agree then that someone can disagree with something Trump does (bumpfire ban by executive order...using emergency powers to get funding for the border wall) and not be a "Bernie Sanders" or an enemy of liberty.  Good!  That's progress.  And for the record, even though I have said this more times than I can count, I don't support Trump being impeached.  I think Amash made a mistake.  I just don't think the mistake he made went against the fourth amendment.  That's it.

----------


## nikcers

> Okay.  So we can all agree then that someone can disagree with something Trump does (bumpfire ban by executive order...using emergency powers to get funding for the border wall) and not be a "Bernie Sanders" or an enemy of liberty.  Good!  That's progress.  And for the record, even though I have said this more times than I can count, I don't support Trump being impeached.  I think Amash made a mistake.  I just don't think the mistake he made went against the fourth amendment.  That's it.


There is a difference between disagreeing with Trumps policy and advocating for the executive not to use or have congressional power. Its congresses job to be a check against executive power.

----------


## jmdrake

> There is a difference between disagreeing with Trumps policy and advocating for the executive not to use or have congressional power. Its congresses job to be a check against executive power.


Okay.  Well I disagree both with Trump's policy on the bumpfire stock ban and his abuse of power for doing it by executive order.  Rand Paul disagree's with Trump's policy of sending nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia and threatening war with Iran.  Both Rand and I oppose Trump when his policy is wrongheaded and when he's abusing executive power.

----------


## UWDude

> My claim is that you are accusing Amash of supporting 4th Amendment violations and FISA abuses without any evidence for your charge. Since you have already proven that for me, I can rest my case.
> 
> What I don't get is why you even keep saying it, given that you obviously don't even have any reason to believe it's true.
> 
> Is it because you're just mindlessly repeating what some other Trumpkin told you to think? We have a lot of that around here.


Amash regarding Trumps rights during entire Russiagate nonsense:
Amash regarding all the criminals involved in the Russia gate coup attempt:


Amash after Russiagate debunked:  Impeach TRUMP!

----------


## UWDude

Amash waited for the exact right time, the time to unite the left and right in their hatred of Trump, and pooped himself.
The diarrhea ran down his leg, and now the only people left to defend him are a small cadre of trump haters on RPF, and they keep trying to show off all his clean drawers from his dresser.

Too late, when I think Amash, I just think of the big brown greasy splotch in the back of his pants and running down his leg.

And dear god, that stench that will always follow him around now.  He smells like the disgusting bums on the left.

----------


## Origanalist

> Amash waited for the exact right time, the time to unite the left and right in their hatred of Trump, and pooped himself.
> The diarrhea ran down his leg, and now the only people left to defend him are a small cadre of trump haters on RPF, and they keep trying to show off all his clean drawers from his dresser.
> 
> Too late, when I think Amash, I just think of the big brown greasy splotch in the back of his pants and running down his leg.
> 
> And dear god, that stench that will always follow him around now.  He smells like the disgusting bums on the left.


Are you trying to out do juleswin for most idiotic post on rpf? Or are you just off your meds again?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Amash regarding Trumps rights during entire Russiagate nonsense:
> Amash regarding all the criminals involved in the Russia gate coup attempt:
> 
> 
> Amash after Russiagate debunked:  Impeach TRUMP!


So you can't find a quote either? Got it.

----------


## UWDude

> So you can't find a quote either? Got it.


All Amash willever be remembered for, no matter how much his bards try to sing of his other feats is....


ignoring the coup based on obvious lies a bs about russia

and trying to further the coup by claiming he sees a technicality, on the part of Trump, ignoring all the blatant, in your face violations of due process by the deep state.

ie 

lying by omission.

Amash thinks he is slick.  He ain't.  Everybody can see the greasy brwon splat on his ass... and certainly everybody can smell it.

But please, tell me more about how clean the rest of his tighty whities are.  That'll make me forget the pungent odor and sloppy river running down his trousers.

----------


## Ender

> All Amash willever be remembered for, no matter how much his bards try to sing of his other feats is....
> 
> 
> ignoring the coup based on obvious lies a bs about russia
> 
> and trying to further the coup by claiming he sees a technicality, on the part of Trump, ignoring all the blatant, in your face violations of due process by the deep state.
> 
> ie 
> 
> ...


Talkin' about yourself again?

----------


## UWDude

> Talkin' about yourself again?


OMG personal insult!  Quick, call a moderator!

----------


## jmdrake

> All Amash willever be remembered for, no matter how much his bards try to sing of his other feats is....
> 
> 
> ignoring the coup based on obvious lies a bs about russia
> 
> and trying to further the coup by claiming he sees a technicality, on the part of Trump, ignoring all the blatant, in your face violations of due process by the deep state.
> 
> ie 
> 
> ...


Moral of the story?  Be like Trump and wantonly attack the 4th amendment on a consistent basis then only raise it as a defense for yourself and  your adoring public will love you because "muh wall."

----------


## dannno

> Moral of the story?  Be like Trump and wantonly attack the 4th amendment on a consistent basis then only raise it as a defense for yourself and  your adoring public will love you because "muh wall."


Or he could be more like Ron Paul.

----------


## jmdrake

> Or he could be more like Ron Paul.


Trump could be?  Yes.  I wish he would be.  Instead we're getting bumpfire stock bans, 1,000 troops sent to threaten Iran, pulling out of an Iran deal that both Ron and Rand support, sale of advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia etc.

----------


## Ender

> OMG personal insult!  Quick, call a moderator!


You messin' with muh free speech, Dude?

----------


## dannno

> Trump could be?  Yes.  I wish he would be.  Instead we're getting bumpfire stock bans, 1,000 troops sent to threaten Iran, pulling out of an Iran deal that both Ron and Rand support, sale of advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia etc.


Yes, it would be great if everybody was like Ron Paul. But I was talking about Justin Amash. Not that he is far off in general.. but where he went off the reservation he was WAYY off base. Maybe he will get re-elected, maybe it will help him get re-elected. In that case, I'm totally ok with it. He knows his district better than me. But if this ends up hurting him or the liberty movement as a whole, that is no good.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, it would be great if everybody was like Ron Paul. But I was talking about Justin Amash. Not that he is far off in general.. but where he went off the reservation he was WAYY off base. Maybe he will get re-elected, maybe it will help him get re-elected. In that case, I'm totally ok with it. He knows his district better than me. *But if this ends up hurting him or the liberty movement as a whole, that is no good.*


I agree.  Especially with the last sentence.  Impeachment is a losing proposition.  Even Nancy Pelosi knows this.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> These are two separate issues.  Like I told @Swordsmyth.
> 
> _Also, to be honest the "fruit from a poisonous tree" doctrine doesn't apply to obstruction. That's a crime committed after the start of an investigation. In a regular criminal proceeding if police found evidence against you from a bogus investigation (such as actual evidence of collusion with the Russians in witness tampering) that evidence would be squashed. But evidence that you tampered with witnesses during the investigation would not be squashed. So...technically in a real criminal proceeding, Trump could be held liable for obstruction even based on a phony FISA warrant. But, like I said, this isn't really a criminal proceeding._


You can't obstruct an illegal investigation because it has no authority, that may not be quite the same as "the fruit of a poisonous tree" but it works out the same.

And impeachment is still bound by the Constitution and the rights of the accused:




> President Trump   has said that if the House were to impeach him despite his not having   committed high crimes and misdemeanors, he might seek review of such   an unconstitutional action in the Supreme Court. On April 24, he tweeted   that if the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head  to  the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only are there no 'High Crimes and   Misdemeanors,' there are no Crimes by me at all.
> Yesterday, when asked by a reporter if he thinks Congress will impeach him, the president responded, I dont see how. They can because theyre possibly allowed, although I cant imagine the courts allowing it.
> Commentators  have accused Trump of not understanding the way  impeachment works and  have stated quite categorically that the courts  have no constitutional  role to play in what is solely a congressional  and political process.  Time magazine declared in a headline Thats Not How It Works, and Vox called the presidents argument profoundly confused.
> 
> 
> Scholars also echoed the derision. The influential legal blog Lawfare wrote confidently that The Supreme Court Has No Role in Impeachment, and my friend and colleague Larry Tribe, an eminent constitutional law scholar, called Trumps argument simply idiocy,   explaining that the court is very good at slapping down attempts to   drag things out by bringing it into a dispute where it has no   jurisdiction.
> Not so fast. Our nonlawyer president may be closer  to the truth than  his lawyer critics. In fact, the Lawfare blog noted  that Trumps  suggestion of resorting to the Supreme Court to appeal an  impeachment  did not come out of nowhere. ... Alan Dershowitz recently made an argument along the same lines, writing in an essay on The Case Against Impeaching Trump   that [w]ere a president to announce that he refused to accept the   actions of the Senate in voting for his removal  and that he would not   leave office unless the Supreme Court affirmed his removal, the people   might well agree with him.  
> However, my argument did not come from nowhere, either.  
> Two  former, well-respected justices of the Supreme Court first  suggested  that the judiciary may indeed have a role in reining in  Congress were it  to exceed its constitutional authority. Justice Byron  White, a John F.  Kennedy appointee, put it this way: Finally, as  applied to the special  case of the President, the majority argument  merely points out that,  were the Senate to convict the President  without any kind of trial, a  Constitutional crisis might well result.  It hardly follows that the  Court ought to refrain from upholding the  Constitution in all  impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in  cases of presidential  impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their  constitutional  responsibility because the Senate has precipitated a  crisis.
> ...

----------


## Origanalist

> Yes, it would be great if everybody was like Ron Paul. But I was talking about Justin Amash. Not that he is far off in general.. but where he went off the reservation he was WAYY off base. Maybe he will get re-elected, maybe it will help him get re-elected. In that case, I'm totally ok with it. He knows his district better than me. But if this ends up hurting him or the liberty movement as a whole, that is no good.


Truthfully, I'm still trying to figure out what the hell he was thinking. But I'm not ready to throw him under the bus despite all the trumpertarian apoplexy going on here. The good far outweighs the bad in my opinion.

----------


## TheCount

Bump for surveillance newsworthyness

----------

