Unlike President Donald Trump, Justin Amash Actually Fights Against FISA Surveillance Abuse

[jmdrake]

That's the point you keep on missing...where does he talk about the phony dossier? Oh that's right, he doesn't. His silence on that makes him a TOOL for the establishment swamp.

That is my point-- he obviously did NOT do his homework to support impeachment of President Trump without looking into the phony dossier--of which Mueller did not bring up. If he did he would see that what Mueller did is circumvent the whole phony dossier that got passed the FISA courts to allow spying.

Consider the following hypothetical. The FBI wants to take down Guido Sanduchee. (Made up name). They get a wiretap by lie in the process of getting it. During their investigation they don't find anything incriminating on Guido. But, Guido threatens witnesses not to cooperate with the FBI. On that scenario can Guido be prosecuted for obstruction of justice? Why yes. Yes he can. If you commit a crime in order to derail an investigation, even a bogus investigation you can be criminally liable for the act. The fact that the investigation was bogus would have been reason to throw out whatever the investigation itself turned up (in the case it turned up nothing) but it's not a blank check to do whateverthehellyouwant in order to stop the investigation itself.

That said, Amash did a bonehead move calling for impeachment. There simply aren't the votes in the senate for it, a nothing in the Mueller report, including the "obstruction" claims, is serious enough to get any significant amount of senate republicans to support impeachment. In short, Amash's conclusion on the severity of the obstruction is overblown IMO, but a bogus investigation itself does not preclude criminality stemming from obstruction of justice of that investigation.

 

[donnay]

Consider the following hypothetical. The FBI wants to take down Guido Sanduchee. (Made up name). They get a wiretap by lie in the process of getting it. During their investigation they don't find anything incriminating on Guido. But, Guido threatens witnesses not to cooperate with the FBI. On that scenario can Guido be prosecuted for obstruction of justice? Why yes. Yes he can. If you commit a crime in order to derail an investigation, even a bogus investigation you can be criminally liable for the act. The fact that the investigation was bogus would have been reason to throw out whatever the investigation itself turned up (in the case it turned up nothing) but it's not a blank check to do whateverthehellyouwant in order to stop the investigation itself.

That said, Amash did a bonehead move calling for impeachment. There simply aren't the votes in the senate for it, a nothing in the Mueller report, including the "obstruction" claims, is serious enough to get any significant amount of senate republicans to support impeachment. In short, Amash's conclusion on the severity of the obstruction is overblown IMO, but a bogus investigation itself does not preclude criminality stemming from obstruction of justice of that investigation.

I understand what you are saying but people, such as Amash, have been dealing with a hypothetical crime from the get-go. This investigation was the left's insurance policy to get President Trump out of office. The DNC, Hillary Foundation, Obama and the intelligence community were hoping this hypothetical about Russia would save them.

 

[jmdrake]

I understand what you are saying but people, such as Amash, have been dealing with a hypothetical crime from the get-go. This investigation was the left's insurance policy to get President Trump out of office. The DNC, Hillary Foundation, Obama and the intelligence community were hoping this hypothetical about Russia would save them.

None of those videos were of Amash.

 

[donnay]

None of those videos were of Amash.

Correct. That is all about the phony Russia investigation lobbed against President Trump. If you want to know where the "collusion" really is, all you have to do is look at that.

Amash should have known better. Especially with the fake Steele dossier and FISA abuse against the entire Trump Campaign.

 

[jmdrake]

Correct. That is all about the phony Russia investigation lobbed against President Trump. If you want to know where the "collusion" really is, all you have to do is look at that.

Amash should have known better. Especially with the fake Steele dossier and FISA abuse against the entire Trump Campaign.

You said "people like Amash." Amash didn't push the narrative you're talking about. Instead he's position on impeachment is based on actions Trump took after the initiation of the investigation. Again, a bogus investigation itself doesn't give the subject of that investigation a blank check to do whatever afterwards. Once more read over the Guido analogy I gave you. Even if Guido never did a dog gone thing wrong before being investigated by the FBI, if he engaged in witness tampering later, that itself is a crime. Regardless, crime or no crime, this isn't worth impeachment. Bill Clinton perjured himself and while he was impeached he was not removed. No need to start a process that has no chance of "success" because what the president is accused of doing will not win over 2/3rds votes in the senate.

 

[donnay]

You said "people like Amash." Amash didn't push the narrative you're talking about. Instead he's position on impeachment is based on actions Trump took after the initiation of the investigation. Again, a bogus investigation itself doesn't give the subject of that investigation a blank check to do whatever afterwards. Once more read over the Guido analogy I gave you. Even if Guido never did a dog gone thing wrong before being investigated by the FBI, if he engaged in witness tampering later, that itself is a crime. Regardless, crime or no crime, this isn't worth impeachment. Bill Clinton perjured himself and while he was impeached he was not removed. No need to start a process that has no chance of "success" because what the president is accused of doing will not win over 2/3rds votes in the senate.

If Amash is calling for impeachment for alleged obstruction after the phony Russian investigation, then he has been tricked into thinking this was a real investigation. If Amash is so gung-ho about illegal use of FISA, then he obviously wasn't paying attention to this entire witch hunt.

 

[jmdrake]

If Amash is calling for impeachment for alleged obstruction after the phony Russian investigation, then he has been tricked into thinking this was a real investigation. If Amash is so gung-ho about illegal use of FISA, then he obviously wasn't paying attention to this entire witch hunt.

No. Once again if there is a phony investigation but someone breaks the law by obstructing justice of that phony investigation that's still a crime. Re-read the Guido example I gave you, this time without thinking about Trump and Amash, and you should be able to see what I'm saying.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Consider the following hypothetical. The FBI wants to take down Guido Sanduchee. (Made up name). They get a wiretap by lie in the process of getting it. During their investigation they don't find anything incriminating on Guido. But, Guido threatens witnesses not to cooperate with the FBI. On that scenario can Guido be prosecuted for obstruction of justice? Why yes. Yes he can. If you commit a crime in order to derail an investigation, even a bogus investigation you can be criminally liable for the act. The fact that the investigation was bogus would have been reason to throw out whatever the investigation itself turned up (in the case it turned up nothing) but it's not a blank check to do whateverthehellyouwant in order to stop the investigation itself.

An illegal investigation has no authority and is not justice so it is impossible to be guilty of obstructing justice when dealing with it.

 

[donnay]

No. Once again if there is a phony investigation but someone breaks the law by obstructing justice of that phony investigation that's still a crime. Re-read the Guido example I gave you, this time without thinking about Trump and Amash, and you should be able to see what I'm saying.

I understand your Guido analogy but it doesn't apply to this scenario. Mueller is as corrupt as all the characters I have already talked about in the above posts. You do realize that Mueller was around during 9/11, and was one of the biggest obsticals for that investigation.

An illegal investigation has no authority and is not justice so it is impossible to be guilty of obstructing justice when dealing with it.

That is correct. There is no collusion with the Russians and never was. What this investigation did was ruin the lives of Flynn, Manafort, Page, Papadopoulos and Stone. Nothing even remotely close to Russian collusion.

 

[jmdrake]

I understand your Guido analogy but it doesn't apply to this scenario. Mueller is as corrupt as all the characters I have already talked about in the above posts. You do realize that Mueller was around during 9/11, and was one of the biggest obsticals for that investigation.

Why do you think it doesn't apply? The fact that Guido was subject to a bogus investigation is proof that Guido's investigator was corrupt. The bottom line is that even if you are subject to a bogus investigation by a corrupt investigator doesn't give you carte blanche to do any and everything in response to fight the investigation. At some point there is a line crossed, even in self defense of a bogus investigation, where you have become criminal. Prosecute the corrupt investigator too. I'm not saying Trump crossed that line. But to say the line doesn't even exist is simply not factually true.

 

[jmdrake]

An illegal investigation has no authority and is not justice so it is impossible to be guilty of obstructing justice when dealing with it.

But if you commit a crime in response to an illegal investigation you can still be held liable for that crime regardless of whether the investigation was illegal or not.

 

[donnay]

Why do you think it doesn't apply? The fact that Guido was subject to a bogus investigation is proof that Guido's investigator was corrupt. The bottom line is that even if you are subject to a bogus investigation by a corrupt investigator doesn't give you carte blanche to do any and everything in response to fight the investigation. At some point there is a line crossed, even in self defense of a bogus investigation, where you have become criminal. Prosecute the corrupt investigator too. I'm not saying Trump crossed that line. But to say the line doesn't even exist is simply not factually true.

Yes I understand that. That's why Flynn, Manafort, Page and many others have been charged with crimes not even related to the investigation of Russia.

Trump was smart not to answer questions with them face to face because he knew they would try to get him on perjury charges like they did Flynn. The other thing I would like to point out is Trump did not use (which he could have like Obama did) Executive Privilege to deny the investigator any things they requested. Trump fully cooperated with them by handing over documents they requested, etc...

Trump's biggest mistake, at the beginning of this, was putting Jeff Sessions as AG and not firing him after he recused himself from the Russia investigation.

 

[EBounding]

Not surprisingly, the hypocrites voted down Justin's FISA amendment:

But yeah, he's a leftist for saying mean things about Trump.

 

[Swordsmyth]

But if you commit a crime in response to an illegal investigation you can still be held liable for that crime regardless of whether the investigation was illegal or not.

Yes but you can't commit the crime of obstruction of justice in relation to an illegal investigation, any other crime you commit you can be charged for.

 

[jmdrake]

Yes but you can't commit the crime of obstruction of justice in relation to an illegal investigation, any other crime you commit you can be charged for.

If you bribe a witness, threaten a witness, bribe a judge, threaten a judge, bribe a juror, threaten a juror, even if that is in relation to an illegal investigation it is still a crime and you can and should be punished for it. That said, I haven't been convinced that Trump did any of that but then I haven't read the Mueller report either.

 

[jmdrake]

Yes I understand that. That's why Flynn, Manafort, Page and many others have been charged with crimes not even related to the investigation of Russia.

Trump was smart not to answer questions with them face to face because he knew they would try to get him on perjury charges like they did Flynn. The other thing I would like to point out is Trump did not use (which he could have like Obama did) Executive Privilege to deny the investigator any things they requested. Trump fully cooperated with them by handing over documents they requested, etc...

Trump's biggest mistake, at the beginning of this, was putting Jeff Sessions as AG and not firing him after he recused himself from the Russia investigation.

I agree wholeheartedly. Trump's best adviser in all of this has been Rudy Giuliani. Rudy refused all requests from Trump to be interviewed by investigators. Rudy would have squashed the whole Stormy Daniels thing earlier than it was if Trump had kept his mouth shut. But lucky for Trump, Stormy Daniels lawyer was a slime himself and that all imploded.