Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, May 18, 2019

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), a critic of President Trump who has entertained a run against him in 2020, became the first Republican congressman to say the president "engaged in impeachable conduct" based on the Mueller Report.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), a critic of President Trump who has entertained a run against him in 2020, became the first Republican congressman to say the president "engaged in impeachable conduct" based on the Mueller Report.

This will definitely provoke a tweetstorm from the bloated, child-raping schittstain.

#1 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2019-05-18 06:25 PM | Reply

Amash wrote that after reading the 448-page report, he had concluded that not only did Mueller's team show Trump attempting to obstruct justice, but that Attorney General William P. Barr had "deliberately misrepresented" the findings. He added that "few members of Congress even read Mueller's report."

"Contrary to Barr's portrayal, Mueller's report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment...." Amash wrote that it was partisanship keeping Republicans from exercising its checks and balances role.

"When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law -- the foundation of liberty -- crumbles," he tweeted.

My guess is that Justin Amash will NOT be a guest on Faux Noose tomorrow.

#2 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-18 06:33 PM | Reply

Amash is not wrong, but the so-called strategy of the Dems sure is.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-18 08:06 PM | Reply

That's one. A few more, a little more public support, and you'll see Nancy's balls.... or RoC's if she wants to show them to you.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-18 08:12 PM | Reply

That's one.

Wow, Corkles can count. So, the dope that posted this LIED when he put an "s" after "lawmaker". No surprise there.

#5 | Posted by Spork at 2019-05-18 08:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), a critic of President Trump who has entertained a run against him in 2020...

'Nuff said.

#6 | Posted by Spork at 2019-05-18 08:37 PM | Reply

you'll see Nancy's balls.... or RoC's if she wants to show them to you.

Nancy will have to take them out of her mouth to do that...

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-18 08:43 PM | Reply

Never Trump douche remains never Trump. Shocking. This is as newsworthy as AOC saying something stupid or Mad Maxine Waters stealing money.

#8 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-05-19 03:24 AM | Reply

[img]i.imgur.com[/img]

#9 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-05-19 10:52 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Why Justin Amash stands alone

So we return to the question that vexes NeverTrumpers and Democrats: Why are Republicans such quivering sycophants, willing to lie and debase themselves in support of an unpopular president who is repudiating many of the principles they have spent their lives advancing?

I'd suggest there are three distinct groups of Republican grovelers. Some may fall into multiple categories:"

First are the cynics who know Trump is unfit, if not dangerous; however, they'll get what they can (e.g., judges, tax cuts) and bolster their resumes (e.g., working for the administration, getting fawning Fox News coverage). When Trump bottoms out, they'll move on, probably insisting they were secretly against Trump all along. (more on each group at the link)

In the second category are Republicans convinced that they'll never find work if they speak out against Trump. They'll lose their offices and/or offend Republican officialdom, including think tanks, right-wing media, donors, party activists and elected officials. (They are part of a right-wing ecosystem; some might call it a racket.)

And finally, there are the cranks, the zealots, the racists and the haters -- a group, it turns out, much larger than many ex-Republicans could ever fathom. This includes not just the overt white nationalists and the tea party crowd but also those who have been simmering with personal resentment against "liberal elites."

Vice President Pence insists he and his fellow evangelical Christians are hapless victims; the children and grandchildren of Dixiecrats fume that everything went downhill in the 1960s.

Some of these people will insist they are not racists nor misogynists -- but yet they sure seem to have an extraordinarily high tolerance for those who are." more

www.washingtonpost.com

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-19 05:12 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Some of these people will insist they are not racists nor misogynists --"
#10 | POSTED BY CORKY

*LOL*

2016 Shroom Flashback

#11 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-19 05:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#11 insists he didn't coddle the Nazis in Charlotte.... which means he's been in Hbrat's helium stash or Nulli's classroom.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-19 08:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Nulli's Classroom" needs to be a Netflix series.

#13 | Posted by bocaink at 2019-05-20 10:55 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

He doubled down today. I'd like to see any rightwinger refute his argument.

People who say there were no underlying crimes and therefore the president could not have intended to illegally obstruct the investigation -- and therefore cannot be impeached -- are resting their argument on several falsehoods:

1. They say there were no underlying crimes. In fact, there were many crimes revealed by the investigation, some of which were charged, and some of which were not but are nonetheless described in Mueller's report.

2. They say obstruction of justice requires an underlying crime. In fact, obstruction of justice does not require the prosecution of an underlying crime, and there is a logical reason for that. Prosecutors might not charge a crime precisely *because* obstruction of justice denied them timely access to evidence that could lead to a prosecution. If an underlying crime were required, then prosecutors could charge obstruction of justice only if it were unsuccessful in completely obstructing the investigation. This would make no sense.

3. They imply the president should be permitted to use any means to end what he claims to be a frivolous investigation, no matter how unreasonable his claim. In fact, the president could not have known whether every single person Mueller investigated did or did not commit any crimes.

4. They imply "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" requires charges of a statutory crime or misdemeanor. In fact, "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust -- and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars.

#14 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-20 03:10 PM | Reply

I'd like to see any rightwinger refute his argument.

#14 | POSTED BY JOE

There's nothing to refute. I think he's spot-on.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-20 03:23 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort