Justin Amash

[aubiefifty 16,807]

On 5/18/2019 at 7:39 PM, toddc said:

First of all, it was Mueller who misrepresented in his report, and did something it was never intended to do.  He went into details about the investigation that should not have been included. His job was to investigate and recommend charges if laws were broken. They couldn’t prove obstruction,  and to say he couldn’t exonerate the president went beyond the scope of what he was supposed to do for the sole purpose of hurting the president. The president had every right to fire Mueller, who worked for the justice department/William Barr/the president —in that order.

it is called honor.....something you trump folks have very little of.

[AU64 10,122]

6 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

it is called honor.....something you trump folks have very little of.

Actually if it were about honor, Muller would not have hired all those Clinton re-treads to conduct this bogus investigation and he would have brought the hammer down on the FBI and CIA leadership...several of whom perjured themselves before congress in the past couple years.    At least they got the axe....but several should be in jail by now.  Brennan and the FBI cabal are totally lacking in honor. , 

As for Amash ?   ...he is a nobody House member who found the way to instant fame is be a Republican who criticizes the president.  

[aubiefifty 16,807]

12 hours ago, AU64 said:

Actually if it were about honor, Muller would not have hired all those Clinton re-treads to conduct this bogus investigation and he would have brought the hammer down on the FBI and CIA leadership...several of whom perjured themselves before congress in the past couple years.    At least they got the axe....but several should be in jail by now.  Brennan and the FBI cabal are totally lacking in honor. , 

As for Amash ?   ...he is a nobody House member who found the way to instant fame is be a Republican who criticizes the president.  

no sir amash is stepping up ad doing his duty and you make petty remarks about him.

[homersapien 11,388]

On 5/20/2019 at 7:43 PM, toddc said:

As a civil libertarian I would have thought he would be more upset about the misuse of the fbi, cia, and state department to spy on a opposing  political party. Guess not.

Those are irresponsible and baseless charges made by an irresponsible administration.

Trump clearly has authoritarian desires, which is what should concern "civil libertarians".

[homersapien 11,388]

22 hours ago, AU64 said:

Actually if it were about honor, Muller would not have hired all those Clinton re-treads to conduct this bogus investigation and he would have brought the hammer down on the FBI and CIA leadership...several of whom perjured themselves before congress in the past couple years.    At least they got the axe....but several should be in jail by now.  Brennan and the FBI cabal are totally lacking in honor. , 

As for Amash ?   ...he is a nobody House member who found the way to instant fame is be a Republican who criticizes the president.  

"Bogus investigation"?  

And I suppose you reject the idea the Russians tried to influence our election and that Trump and/or his campaign had numerous ties to Russia before and during the campaign (which they actively tried to hide or cover-up by lying)?

[aubiefifty 16,807]

23 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

it is called honor.....something you trump folks have very little of.

i stand by my comments. please neg me again as it counts on my total. when i get 5000 i plan on retiring and y'all will be rid of me......waves

[TexasTiger 12,949]

More Amash:

"I mean, volume two speaks for itself," he added. "So people who are baffled by it, I wonder how carefully they read volume two because it's there. There's a difference between skimming the pages and actually reading it and understanding it."

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/05/22/politics/amash-trump-irresponsible-threat/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalwire.com%2F

[TexasTiger 12,949]

More Amash:

https://mobile.twitter.com/justinamash/status/1131605784742256640

[toddc 13,194]

Do y’all really think AG Barr and acting AG would decide against obstruction, if  it was so obvious, then release the report to the public?  Not 

[aubiefifty 16,807]

23 hours ago, toddc said:

Do y’all really think AG Barr and acting AG would decide against obstruction, if  it was so obvious, then release the report to the public?  Not 

yes. he is so far up trumps behind we should call him hemorrhoid. all of this was done for the truth and all we get are bits and pieces and the ag protecting the president instead of standing up for america.

[toddc 13,194]

5 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

yes. he is so far up trumps behind we should call him hemorrhoid. all of this was done for the truth and all we get are bits and pieces and the ag protecting the president instead of standing up for america.

Bits and pieces of what? The 99.9% of the mueller report. 😆 

[aubiefifty 16,807]

27 minutes ago, toddc said:

Bits and pieces of what? The 99.9% of the mueller report. 😆 

no one has seen that much of the report other than mueller and company and the repukes hiding stuff trying to protect trump. nice try tho and thanks for playing. do come back.........

[toddc 13,194]

17 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

no one has seen that much of the report other than mueller and company and the repukes hiding stuff trying to protect trump. nice try tho and thanks for playing. do come back.........

That’s because the heads of the committees refuse to go look at it and you know it!

[aubiefifty 16,807]

1 hour ago, toddc said:

That’s because the heads of the committees refuse to go look at it and you know it!

i am pretty sure going to court to force the repubs to let them see a mostly unredacted copy is bull.  look you will not even consider telling the truth so quit wasting my time. that last whopper is pretty big. show me where it says the heads of committees refused to look at that. next you will say that about his tax records. seriously. back up what you say or just stop.

[toddc 13,194]

33 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

i am pretty sure going to court to force the repubs to let them see a mostly unredacted copy is bull.  look you will not even consider telling the truth so quit wasting my time. that last whopper is pretty big. show me where it says the heads of committees refused to look at that. next you will say that about his tax records. seriously. back up what you say or just stop.

On the eve of Attorney General William Barr’s testimony on a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, only two lawmakers have set eyes on secret information that Barr withheld from public view.

Barr offered access to a less-redacted version of the report to just 12 members of Congress — six Democrats and six Republicans. But as of Tuesday afternoon, only Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opted to view it. A third, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he planned to review the report later Tuesday. 

As of this writing, not one of the six Democrats granted access to what amounts to 99.9 percent of volume IIof the Mueller report, which details the president’s behavior as it relates to obstruction of justice, have taken the opportunity to examine it. If they had, they could have viewed the entirety of Mueller’s obstruction case against Trump except for the following seven redactions, two of which are applied to footnotes.

I’m just going to assume you are trolling me now, so I’m out!

[aubiefifty 16,807]

again lets report ALL the facts shall we? we are talking the full report and not that partial mess barr redacted himself to try and protect trump. when you hide huge portions of a report you are not really showing the report. you are only seeing what barr wants you to see. oh and just to help you out a little more ANYONE can buy the redacted version on amazon.com. but hey you can go download the thing free on a fedgov site. but again it has been doctored by barr with all his redactions which means it is not worth a hill of beans. so in simple english.......he is not releasing the report. he is just releasing parts of the report he wants you to see. do you understand now?

 

 Can Democrats get hold of the full Mueller report?

Jan Wolfe

4-5 minutes

(Reuters) - Congressional Democrats have taken legal action to obtain the full Russia report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, without redactions, as well as other evidence he uncovered in his 22-month investigation but there are obstacles in their way.

The Mueller Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election is pictured in New York, New York, U.S., April 18, 2019. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri

U.S. Attorney General William Barr must decide by May 1 whether to comply with a subpoena from Democrats and hand over the whole Mueller report into Russia’s role in the 2016 election, most of which was released last week.

In his report, Mueller did not establish that the Trump campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russians to influence the election. The report also provided extensive details on Trump’s efforts to thwart Mueller’s investigation but the special counsel stopped short of charging the president with the crime of obstruction of justice.

Below is an explanation of the legal hurdles Democrats must clear in their subpoena effort, important judicial precedents and Barr’s rationale for keeping parts of the report confidential.

WHY DID BARR NOT RELEASE THE WHOLE REPORT?

Barr, who under federal regulations oversaw Mueller’s work, blacked out sections to hide certain details.

One category of redactions was information obtained through grand jury proceedings.

Grand juries are groups of citizens who decide whether to authorize criminal indictments or demands for evidence sought by prosecutors. Grand jury proceedings are highly secretive to avoid revealing the subjects of the investigation, and also to protect the privacy of anyone examined but not charged with a crime.

Federal laws generally require government lawyers like Barr to keep secret information obtained from grand jury proceedings, with few exceptions.

The other redactions fell into three categories: details that could expose and jeopardize U.S. intelligence gathering methods and sources; information about active law enforcement matters; and potentially damaging information about peripheral players who were not charged.

WHAT HAPPENS IF BARR IGNORES THE SUBPOENA?

A subpoena is a legally enforceable demand for information, meaning Congress has the power to force compliance.

Legal experts said that, if Barr refuses, the first step for the U.S. House of Representatives to force compliance would be a vote to hold him “in contempt.”

Legal experts said that Democrats would then likely file a civil lawsuit and ask a judge to order Barr to comply.

A similar subpoena fight unfolded during the presidency of Trump’s Democratic predecessor Barack Obama. In 2012, the House, then controlled by Republicans, subpoenaed internal Justice Department documents related to a failed federal law enforcement operation to track illegal gun sales, dubbed “Fast and Furious.”

Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, refused to comply, citing a doctrine called executive privilege. The House voted to hold him in contempt, marking the first time in U.S. history that Congress took such action against a sitting member of a president’s Cabinet.

The court fight dragged on for years. In 2016, a judge rejected Holder’s executive privilege claim. That ruling eventually led to an far-reaching settlement in March 2018, after Obama and Holder left office, that called for the release of files and emails.

Because court fights can last for months or even years, it is likely congressional Democrats and the Justice Department would arrive at some sort of compromise.

Barr proposed allowing a select group of lawmakers to view a less-redacted version of Mueller’s report, but Democrats rejected that approach.

HOW ELSE COULD THE DEMOCRATS OBTAIN THE REPORT?

Congress could ask the judge who oversaw Mueller’s grand jury, Beryl Howell, to release certain transcripts and other information.

U.S. courts have said that judges have inherent authority to release grand jury materials when doing so is in the public interest.

Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Caroline Stauffer and Alistair Bell

[toddc 13,194]

2 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

again lets report ALL the facts shall we? we are talking the full report and not that partial mess barr redacted himself to try and protect trump. when you hide huge portions of a report you are not really showing the report. you are only seeing what barr wants you to see. oh and just to help you out a little more ANYONE can buy the redacted version on amazon.com. but hey you can go download the thing free on a fedgov site. but again it has been doctored by barr with all his redactions which means it is not worth a hill of beans. so in simple english.......he is not releasing the report. he is just releasing parts of the report he wants you to see. do you understand now?

 

 Can Democrats get hold of the full Mueller report?

Jan Wolfe

4-5 minutes

(Reuters) - Congressional Democrats have taken legal action to obtain the full Russia report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, without redactions, as well as other evidence he uncovered in his 22-month investigation but there are obstacles in their way.

The Mueller Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election is pictured in New York, New York, U.S., April 18, 2019. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri

U.S. Attorney General William Barr must decide by May 1 whether to comply with a subpoena from Democrats and hand over the whole Mueller report into Russia’s role in the 2016 election, most of which was released last week.

In his report, Mueller did not establish that the Trump campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russians to influence the election. The report also provided extensive details on Trump’s efforts to thwart Mueller’s investigation but the special counsel stopped short of charging the president with the crime of obstruction of justice.

Below is an explanation of the legal hurdles Democrats must clear in their subpoena effort, important judicial precedents and Barr’s rationale for keeping parts of the report confidential.

WHY DID BARR NOT RELEASE THE WHOLE REPORT?

Barr, who under federal regulations oversaw Mueller’s work, blacked out sections to hide certain details.

One category of redactions was information obtained through grand jury proceedings.

Grand juries are groups of citizens who decide whether to authorize criminal indictments or demands for evidence sought by prosecutors. Grand jury proceedings are highly secretive to avoid revealing the subjects of the investigation, and also to protect the privacy of anyone examined but not charged with a crime.

Federal laws generally require government lawyers like Barr to keep secret information obtained from grand jury proceedings, with few exceptions.

The other redactions fell into three categories: details that could expose and jeopardize U.S. intelligence gathering methods and sources; information about active law enforcement matters; and potentially damaging information about peripheral players who were not charged.

WHAT HAPPENS IF BARR IGNORES THE SUBPOENA?

A subpoena is a legally enforceable demand for information, meaning Congress has the power to force compliance.

Legal experts said that, if Barr refuses, the first step for the U.S. House of Representatives to force compliance would be a vote to hold him “in contempt.”

Legal experts said that Democrats would then likely file a civil lawsuit and ask a judge to order Barr to comply.

A similar subpoena fight unfolded during the presidency of Trump’s Democratic predecessor Barack Obama. In 2012, the House, then controlled by Republicans, subpoenaed internal Justice Department documents related to a failed federal law enforcement operation to track illegal gun sales, dubbed “Fast and Furious.”

Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, refused to comply, citing a doctrine called executive privilege. The House voted to hold him in contempt, marking the first time in U.S. history that Congress took such action against a sitting member of a president’s Cabinet.

The court fight dragged on for years. In 2016, a judge rejected Holder’s executive privilege claim. That ruling eventually led to an far-reaching settlement in March 2018, after Obama and Holder left office, that called for the release of files and emails.

Because court fights can last for months or even years, it is likely congressional Democrats and the Justice Department would arrive at some sort of compromise.

Barr proposed allowing a select group of lawmakers to view a less-redacted version of Mueller’s report, but Democrats rejected that approach.

HOW ELSE COULD THE DEMOCRATS OBTAIN THE REPORT?

Congress could ask the judge who oversaw Mueller’s grand jury, Beryl Howell, to release certain transcripts and other information.

U.S. courts have said that judges have inherent authority to release grand jury materials when doing so is in the public interest.

Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Caroline Stauffer and Alistair Bell

Again, read my edit showing 99.9% of Volume 2 is available for them to read! Can’t be much more open than that without breaking laws congress passed themselves!

As to the volume one report it is not disputed that Mueller found no collusion! 

[aubiefifty 16,807]

3 minutes ago, toddc said:

Again, read my edit showing 99.9% of Volume 2 is available for them to read! Can’t be much more open than that without breaking laws congress passed themselves!

As to the volume one report it is not disputed that Mueller found no collusion! 

now you are splitting hairs but i like your honesty. people want to read the mueller report and not the barr report and they are not allowed to do so unless it has changed in the last few days. people would love to read all the facts and make their own mind up. i do and i bet you would as well but not sure if you will admit it. i am pretty sure one of the intelligence committees has not been allowed to see the whole thing yet either unless that has changed recently. for trump to be so innocent of this and that why are so many things redacted so that even the committee with the clearances are not allowed to read it? that is not truth. that is politics. coverups. mueller did not investigate for two or so years to only have parts released. but please keep trying. i am going back to reading my booka dn will check in latere. enjoy a nic cold one and some bbq.

[toddc 13,194]

1 minute ago, aubiefifty said:

now you are splitting hairs but i like your honesty. people want to read the mueller report and not the barr report and they are not allowed to do so unless it has changed in the last few days. people would love to read all the facts and make their own mind up. i do and i bet you would as well but not sure if you will admit it. i am pretty sure one of the intelligence committees has not been allowed to see the whole thing yet either unless that has changed recently. for trump to be so innocent of this and that why are so many things redacted so that even the committee with the clearances are not allowed to read it? that is not truth. that is politics. coverups. mueller did not investigate for two or so years to only have parts released. but please keep trying. i am going back to reading my booka dn will check in latere. enjoy a nic cold one and some bbq.

Yes sir you are right and I’m wrong and I’m sorry. Sorry I wasted your time on this matter.

[Mid Atlantic Tiger 150]

On 5/19/2019 at 2:03 PM, toddc said:

I don’t think you can have a debate with someone who starts name calling either! That’s going to end the debate every time. 

Still trying to figure out the name he called you.  Ignorant isn't one.  It is a condition.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

[aubiefifty 16,807]

motherjones.com

 

Justin Amash gets standing ovations after calling for impeachment proceedings

Tonya Riley

3 minutes

---

Cory Morse/AP

Rep. Justin Amash returned home to Grand Rapids, Michigan, on Tuesday for his first public event since becoming the first—and so far only—Republican in Congress to back impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump. That may be a lonely position on Capitol Hill, but it inspired multiple standing ovations and rounds of applause from voters attending the town hall.

“I want to salute your courage,” one man told Amash, sparking cheers from the audience. 

As he has previously done on Twitter, Amash spent much of the event outlining his belief that Trump had committed impeachable offenses, as well as why he considered it Congress’ duty to hold the president accountable for such actions. Amash repeatedly referred to the allegations outlined in the Mueller report to explain how he had arrived at that conclusion.

But not everyone at Tuesday’s packed event appeared pleased. After one woman wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat accused him of drinking the same “Kool-aid” as Democrats, Amash—who is a founding member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus—was forced to defend both his position on impeachment and conservative voting record.

“I’m not even a middle-of-the-road Republican when it comes to these scorecards,” he responded. “So, I haven’t changed. I’m who I said I was: I’m a principled, constitutional conservative who has stayed consistent regardless of whether we have President Obama in office or President Trump.”

That voting record hasn’t satisfied Amash’s GOP colleagues. Last week, the Freedom Caucus formally condemned Amash’s call for impeachment proceedings.

Amash also told voters that many of his Republican colleagues privately agreed with him but were unwilling to say so publicly. “What they’ll say to me is, ‘Justin, you know, going out publicly with that, you know the Democrats will never support you. You know that they’re hypocrites on this stuff,'” Amash said. “And I say, ‘You know some of them are, some of them aren’t. But it doesn’t matter to me.’ Because you have to look at what you’re doing first.”

“If you have a society where all we care about is that the other side is bad, and therefore we don’t have to do the right thing, that society will break down and you will have no liberty,” he continued, again drawing applause.