Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Rep Amash “R” Congressman from Michigan is bashed by a voter
Below I’ve posted a clip from Fox News of Trump supporter Anna Timmer lecturing Michigan Rep. Justin Amash at a Grand Rapids town hall after he called for impeachment proceedings against the president. The run time is about five minutes and I’m hoping people here who live in Michigan see this and comment, although all members are encouraged to do so.
Published in General
I bet there are several different statutes it could be done under but Trump decided to have it done under this one, as independent investigations are not subject to the whims of any branch, for the sake of removing any possible allegations of political tampering.
And none of it should have been made public.
If you say so.
Was the investigation not enacted at his request? If not I am more than happy to hear a fully supported alternative explanation.
Why? Under what principle should government not be transparent in its workings?
Investigations aren’t made public until a prosecutor files charges.
As stated before it was an independent investigation, not a prosecution looking for prey. There was never going to be a possibility of the DOJ indicting Trump. The current precedent is that a branch of government cannot bring legal cases against itself (example being that DOJ indicts Trump for conspiracy).
So you say this was done under the proper statute?
I bet there were multiple statutes that could enable investigations.
This lady should take Amash’s place in Congress.
First of all Gary I am curious how you were able to make such a lengthy reply. In attempting to answer you, I had to snip out over 2000 words! I thought each respondent only got 500? Are you a ninja ricochet hacker, and if so pls PM how you managed this so I don’t spend so much time SNIPping when I reply to folks.
Secondly the hack that provided the emails to Wikileaks was not a hack, it was an internal leak, probably by Seth Rich, a staffer at the DNC. Forensic examination of what went on has proven this. No less an expert than Bill Binney showed the time signature meant it was via a USB or flash drive device and not hacking.
Andy McCarthy just said again the Muller wasn’t supposed to produce a report.
As an FYI to those who may not be aware, Robert Mueller’s team submitted these summaries to the Attorney General with the full report. They did not submit the report, however, with the grand jury (6e) material identified as AG Barr himself had formally requested on March 5 after weeks of his office being stonewalled by Mueller’s team.
Mueller’s team was highly upset when Barr did not release the summaries ahead of the report itself which they knew Barr could not legally release without knowing what material in it was grand jury-related. There is clear intent to stall the AG’s office and let the summaries — some of the most prejudicial/biased parts of the Mueller report, which itself is a prosecutorial document that provides one side — drive a narrative for which they had no legal basis.
A fair, objective reading of the Mueller report requires a broader knowledge of things its contents do not provide. The report is woefully inadequate at providing context of and possible explanations for Trump/Trump team’s actions. You also need to look at the team itself, how and what they did and did not investigate, how and what they wrote in the report (there are some things being released that paint a disturbing picture of things being edited to depict nefarious intent).
@Mim526 You are posting a most excellent summary and rebuttal to those who are total devotees of all accusations against Trump, and who also stand in awe of all things Mueller. Thank you.
Appreciate your comments as well, @caroljoy. I’d had growing concerns about Mueller’s team and investigation that were sadly born out in their end report, and I do mean ‘sadly’ because I’d hoped from the day he was appointed that, while I did not believe it warranted or per code, he truly would “get to the bottom of what happened” as I recall Lindsey Graham saying around that time.
After I read/skimmed the report when it first came out, my strongest impression was of what had not been investigated or reported that Americans need to know. I now have several pages worth of typed notes and links (with additional dozens of pages in those links of articles and others’ research findings) that are alarming in what they reveal about the Mueller team/report, the press, and some of our public officials. I’m not talking conspiracy theories, outrage-of-the-day, talk radio, etc. stuff, but overwhelming and broad based cause for concern.
Of everything going on in our government and political arena I find concerning, this disturbs me most. Domestic and foreign policy are very important. These people can take our lives and liberty away, and I have a growing awareness what we’re seeing bubble up to the surface is the result of a pervasive culture in federal law enforcement/justice that is antithetical to our Constitution.
For me this is not about POTUS or Mueller per se, though my sense of fairness has been thoroughly triggered by #resistance behavior past and present. Rule of law, a phrase used frequently these days, means different things among Americans. In practical terms I’ve come to think of it as follow the law vs. use the law types (with Barr in follow and Mueller/Weissmann in the use categories as examples).
To repeat a critical point someone else made online: a rule of law basic definition at a minimum requires a barrier between law and politics which I am increasingly disappointed to see people like Romney giving no indication they even comprehend, let alone support, when they lambast Trump yet remain silent about Mueller’s overreaches, DNC/HRC/FusionGPS oppo disaster, etc. Which puts them on the use the law for political purposes side, not the follow it wherever/whoever no more no less side in my Rule of Law equation.
One of the most important and true observations in this thread IMO.
Also true is that the GOP had not been the party of Reagan long before Donald Trump ran for office and won in 2016.