Patterico's Pontifications

6/1/2019

Headlines: Justin Amash and If You Don’t Support Trump, You Must Be a Democrat

Filed under: Politics — DRJ @ 9:41 am



[Headlines from DRJ]

Trump Supporter vs. Amash: “How Can You Become A Democrat When We Voted For You As A Republican?”:

Anyway, my question is how can you become a Democrat when we voted for you as a Republican? Because you drank the same Kool-Aid as all the Democrats.”

The discussion got heated when the two disagreed that obstruction of justice cannot occur if no crime was committed.

Henry Olsen says Justin Amash Acts Like a Typical Democrat Because . . .:

he Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf acknowledges that Justin Amash’s lonely stand may not lead to Donald Trump’s impeachment. “But the nature of it,” he wrote, “forces conservative Trump voters to make a clarifying choice: To stay loyal to a president of bad character, they must attack a man of good character who votes in accordance with the principles they share.”

As if on cue, the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Henry Olsen accepted the challenge.

Tracking Congress In The Age Of TrumpSupport for Trump by Justin Amash:

Career – 62%
116th Congress – 92%
115th Congress – 52%

— DRJ

35 Responses to “Headlines: Justin Amash and If You Don’t Support Trump, You Must Be a Democrat”

  1. As a Congressman, he is elected to support his district, not as a platform for whatever. It’s amazing how many Congresspeople forget that.

    What his constituents are saying is that they disagree with the direction he has taken, as their perfect right. He works for them, and if they are unhappy, somebody else works for them. It does not matter if their reasons are right, good, or even sane. Hank Johnson may be dumber than a rock, but I bet you he listens to his constituents.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  2. Olsen’s argument is akin to Clarence Thomas detractors saying that the Supreme Court Justice is not really black because of the stances he’s taken.

    Paul Montagu (ed733c)

  3. IRC, only 50 liberal Democrats in House support impeachment. And then there’s Amash. Like the Liberal Democrats his reasons for impeachment are so laughably vague and insignificant, you only think he’s coming out as Democrat, or he’s a grand-stander wanting attention. My own opinion, is that he’s tired of being a Congressman and knows that by changing sides, he’ll get a good lobbyist job or a wonderful job at Goldman Sachs.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  4. I didn’t know the bulwark was still in business.

    NJRob (dc50d3)

  5. 4. It is indeed. And business is booming, Friend!

    Gryph (08c844)

  6. The discussion got heated when the two disagreed that obstruction of justice cannot occur if no crime was committed.

    Amash’s answer wasn’t very good, because he accepted the (false) premise that “no crime was committed”.

    In fact, there is no doubt whatsoever that many serious crimes were committed by the Russians who intervened in the election on Donald Trump’s behalf, and that Donald Trump corruptly attempted to cover-up and obstruct the investigation of those crimes on numerous occasions.

    (In addition, Trump’s son, son-in-law and campaign manager directly conspired with agents of the Russian government to violate the election laws to Trump’s advantage.)

    Dave (1bb933)

  7. . Like the Liberal Democrats his reasons for impeachment are so laughably vague and insignificant,

    There is a solid reason for impeachment. Trump abused the powers of his office to impede an investigation of an actual crime. That Trump did not commit the underlying crime does not render his actions nor criminal or lessen their corrupt nature.

    Kishnevi (46054d)

  8. It’s impossible to be guilty of obstructing justice absent an underlying crime, which is why when the cops show up at your house with a search warrant you can refuse service if you don’t have the evidence they’re looking for and can in fact shoot them like common criminals if they attempt to force entry. This is a well-known point of law taught at all the internet’s finest law schools.

    Jerryskids (702a61)

  9. There is a solid reason for impeachment. Trump abused the powers of his office to impede an investigation of an actual crime. That Trump did not commit the underlying crime does not render his actions nor criminal or lessen their corrupt nature.

    Nixon wasn’t the one who broke into Watergate, either.

    Dave (1bb933)

  10. No matter how he feels about Trump, calling Amash a “Democrat” is silly. He’s a libertarian who is upset that there are now two statist parties. He’ll face a primary if he decides to run again, and who knows how that will turn out. There’s a year to go, and anything could happen.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  11. Why does every last thread keep running down to contradiction over obstruction? Is that really interesting to anyone any more?

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  12. Amash had his azz handed to him by a lady at that media event for Amash. The video is great. She is a passionate voter.

    mg (8cbc69)

  13. 8, Jerryskids (702a61) — 6/1/2019 @ 9:28 pm

    It’s impossible to be guilty of obstructing justice absent an underlying crime,

    Mueller explicitly said that is not the case, and Barr said that, while that was true, you needed a corrupt motive amd the absence of an underlying crime went along way toward determining that there was no corrupt motive.

    David French in National Review wrote that the definition of obstruction of justice is too broad,

    (This may be temered by the fact that the definiton of corrupt motive is pretty narrow)

    P.S. I don’t think they teach in law schools that you can defy a search warrant. If it is asubpoena you can tell them no, they;re not authorized, or go into court to quash it.

    Sammy Finkelman (db7fea)

  14. So many Republicans say they support Trump. It makes me wonder; they can’t all have downed the Kool Aid. The President’s many “gaffes” (remember when slight misstatements were “gaffes?) have got to make them cringe at times. You’d think that some of them may tell a pollster they support Trump, but not tell their friends. Is Trump’s support really that deep? Or is it just that the Democrats seem the only alternative?

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  15. David French in National Review wrote that the definition of obstruction of justice is too broad

    Perhaps. I’m more concerned that, at least in criminal law, it’s heavily weighted to the government’s side. For example, they can lie to you with impunity, but if you lie to them, it’s a felony.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  16. Jerryskids (702a61) — 6/1/2019 @ 9:28 pm

    Take note, all you homeowners with Article II powers.

    Munroe (227e8d)

  17. Amash by joining 50 radical Democrats in calling for Trump to be impeached is joining the Democrats in all but name. His recent Townhall was filled with liberal democrats who screamed abuse at anyone who supported Trump. A lady who criticized Hillary was laughed and jeered at. And Amash Lapped it all up.

    As for David French, he’s just a clown. I say that in sadness, because before Trump, he had a few good ideas and seemed a somewhat sensible Neo-Con. But like Bill Kristol, he’s reveled himself to be a FAKECON of the highest order – and a thundering bore. All his columns for the last three years can be boiled down to: “Orange man Bad”.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  18. Amash had his azz handed to him by a lady at that media event for Amash. The video is great. She is a passionate voter.

    The idiot in the MAGA hat? Amash disposed of her stupid point quite effectively.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  19. I don’t recall she had a maga hat on. She was just passionate about her feelings towards Amash.

    mg (8cbc69)

  20. Trump and many of his supporters here, as well as conservatives like me, care about FISA abuse. Yet, unlike Trump, Justin Amash Actually Fights Against FISA Surveillance Abuse. Ironic, isn’t it?

    DRJ (15874d)

  21. Amash is a principled constitutional conservative-libertarian. Calling him a Democrat is ludicrous and evidences an empty mind devoid of any semblance of reason.

    As to the obstruction charge, he clearly explained why it should be made. The reason why obstruction can be charged without evidence of an underlying crime is because the obstruction may have removed or destroyed the evidence of the underlying crime so that the criminal charge could not be filed. That is how the law is written. It is also why the mere attempt to obstruct an investigation, even if unsuccessful, results in the charge. Amash is certainly correct that Mueller found Trump deserving to be charged.

    However, Mueller followed DOJ policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, so he did not issue the charge. Here he correctly interprets the judicial system as thus–prosecutors do not issue indictments; grand juries do. In this case, involving a sitting president, the House is the grand jury, while the Senate is the trial court. Hence, Mueller and his team conducted the investigation, examined the evidence and filed a report on their findings to the appropriate authority. That would be like a prosecuting district attorney presenting evidence before a grand jury in pursuit of an indictment to proceed to trial, except Mueller did not view his role as a special prosecutor, but rather as a special counsel, in other words as an investigator and finder of facts, which is appropriate under the statute. (Mueller is certainly not going to prosecute the case before Congress, that is the role of elected representatives and senators.) It is now incumbent on the House, as grand jury, to examine the evidence and decide whether to issue an indictment, that is an order of impeachment, which if issued would then proceed to the Senate, as court, for trial.

    While he didn’t that exact analogy in explaining his position, that is precisely what Amash meant. And he’s right, because that is how the system is designed to work under the Constitution. The Congress has a duty to act, perform its role in this political drama.

    I had the great pleasure and privilege to see Hal Holbrook perform Mark Twain Tonight! live in 2004. It was the 50th anniversary of the one-man show, and he was touring the country. It’s incredible really, but did you know that Hal Holbrook has been playing Mark Twain for more years than Samuel Clemens wrote using the pseudonym? I had seen it many years before on television, and I highly recommend the DVD version, but there is no substitute for seeing it live. I couldn’t believe that Hal Holbrook would deign to bring his critically acclaimed, multiple-award winning sho to McAllen–I mean, that’s about as far off Broadway as it gets–but he did, and I wouldn’t have missed it for the world, as this to me was history. What a great actor, and what a stunning performance! Aged and experienced, when he took the stage, you would swear to God that that really was Mark Twain, spending an evening and having a conversation with mortal you.

    “First God created the idiot. That was for practice. Then he created Congress.

    Imagine you were an idiot. Imagine you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”

    That’s what I’m talking about. That is what I am talking about! Hal Holbrook respects his audience. The tiny auditorium was full, standing room only, and though it was a relatively small crowd for a star of his stature, maybe 1,500 at most, he knew that everyone there did not come to see Hal Holbrook; they came to see Mark Twain. And he delivered, way beyond expectations. Forget the willing suspension of disbelief, this was the stunning ascension of true belief. Holbrook had so totally absorbed the character by then that he had literally become the character, more so than even Clemens did in his life, and he invented the character! (That’s because Clemens was a living person in the act of creating a literary figure, which at the time had not yet become larger than life, so it was impossible for him to portray the character as such. Whereas, Holbrook had the advantage of being able to interpret the larger-than-life literary figure and portray him as such. This wasn’t Hal Holbrook presenting himself as Samuel Clemens portraying Mark Twain. This was Hal Holbrook portraying Mark Twain, which Clemens could not do in his life, because Mark Twain had not yet become Mark Twain, as we know him.)

    Still, Clemens was an astute observer and brilliant writer. Perhaps he hoped but could not have known who and what Mark Twain would become to subsequent generations. (In his early years, he was an investor, who lost his entire fortune in a stock market crash. Completely broke, he turned to writing books as a way of making ends meet. It was his genius to invent Mark Twain, a pseudonym which literally, as a pilot’s term on a river boat, means “clear water ahead.”) His books inspired millions, and his aphorisms ring true to this day, especially today.

    Members of Congress are idiots. (But, then, what does that say about the people who elected them?) This entire mess we find ourselves in is the result of Congress abrogating its responsibility over decades, giving regulatory authority to unelected and unresponsive heads of departments and granting more and more power to the executive, because representatives and senators did not want to take the time and trouble to debate and vote on the record. That would interfere with their posturing for reelection and making insider deals to enrich themselves. Which is exactly how and why we arrive at a poorly scripted play on a stage stuffed with bad actors.

    No one voted for Hal Holbrook to be Mark Twain, but he understood his role and respected his audience. He did not disappoint. But that’s because he interpreted the script as written by Clemens; he did not mispresent Mark Twain, instead he portrayed him accurately. Had he not, it would have been a betrayal.

    The role of an elected official is much the same, but different in a meaningful way. Yes, he or she should respect the will of constituents. However, at times, more often than not, what the public clamors for goes against its best interests. It is in these times elected officials have a greater responsibility to act in accordance to the law as written, follow the script as it were, whether the public likes it or not. To do otherwise would be a betrayal, because the oath they swore to is to protect the Constitution and abide by the rule of law, not succumb to the madness of crowds.

    Politics may be a popularity contest, but governance is not. The actor who cannot perform will lose his or her audience, and never be seen or heard from again. But how is it that politicians who do not perform do not lose their constituents, and keep coming back over and over to appear in the same, tired, old drama that no one wants to watch anymore? It is the mystery of and a tragedy for the American body politic. And for that we have no one to blame other than ourselves.

    Any elected official can be removed from office, whether by the ballot box or impeachment proceedings. We have a rogue president who lucked into office by happening to run against an unelectable opponent. Now he thinks he can act with impunity without oversight, as if he were above the law. Every day he displays his ignorance, incompetence and ignobility, how unfit he is for the role of president, to the cheers of a dwindling albeit loud madding crowd. There is no accounting for taste, or principle, as large sections of the audience walk way, leaving behind a cult of constituents, who wouldn’t know a pathetic performance of a poorly scripted play bey a bad actor from a fake Reality TV show starring a fraud CEO, who never succeeded in business at anthing other than selling his name to gullible investors that subsequently went bankrupt.

    As a principled constitutional conservative-libertarian myself, I couldn’t agree more with Amash. The House has a duty to perform in its role as grand jury. Representatives have an obligation not to their constituents but to the Constitution, because they swore an oath to the Constitution, not to the roar of the madding crowd, which is fickle and not resolute. Have them examine the evidence submitted in the Special Counsel’s report and come to a decision on whether to indict (impeach) or not. But have them examine the evidence, read the report–Mueller has nothing more to say, because his report was meticulously written–and come to a decision. If it is to impeach, then refer the case for trial. The Senate has a duty to perform in its role as court. Senators have the same obligation, because they swore the same oath to the Constitution, to follow the rule of lawy and not heed to the roar of the madding crowd. Have them hear the arguments and come to a decision on whether to convict (remove) or not. That is the way the system is designed to work.

    I expected Gov. Perry and Sen. Cruz, whom I supported initially, and a few others whom I respected initially, to be making the same argument as Amash is now. But they’ve all gone full subservient to the cult of personality that is accepting of bad acting and fraud. What can I do about that? Nothing really, other than not vote for them ever again. I will not sit in that auditorium, even if I had bought a ticket to the show. I’ll eat the ticket, because bad acting is not worth watching. I bought the ticket, that was my unwitting mistake, because I allowed myself to believe that I was going to an authentic show. When I found out I was not, I walked out, never to return. And I am not the least bit interested in listening to what some cult member has to say about how great a bad performance was.

    It’s like the Electric Light Orchestra back in the 70s. Perhaps you remember. They had a couple of hit songs on radio and won critical acclaim for their concerts in rock magazines. What an incredible light show! With lasers and special effects, this is the best concert you’ll ever see! Or so it went, until it was found out that the band was lip synching and air guitaring to tape of stage. In other words, they were faking it, and depending on lasers and special effect to cover up their inability to perform live. Back then there was an intimacy between performers and audiences, and it was taken seriously, by both. The only way for a band to become rock stars was to go on the road and play it live before an audience, because radio play did not determine album sales, concert attendance did. So you got these one-hit wonders on the radio that couldn’t fill a club, and you got these mega-hit wonders on stage that could fill coliseums. There is a difference. The bands that made it delivered on stage, live. They respected and loved their audiences, because they knew that without their fans, they would be nobodies nowhere. So they showed up and delivered. It was their time to perform. They played it real, authentic, beyond expectations.

    When we found out that ELO wasn’t real, that it was nothing more than a tape recorder on stage, with some posers, accompanied by a laser beam light show, what was the point? Who would play to watch a light show set to a tape recorder with a poser band? Album sales plummeted, and concert attendance tanked–a lot of a fans ate their tickets–and ELO had to cancel their tour not even half-way through, and haven’t been seen or heard from again, except in some remote regions of cult followers.

    That is the way this is going to play out. At least Amash has the integrity to play it live before a town hall. He did not back down before the crowd, but stood on principles. He does not depend on a light show and special effects. He delivers it real, authentic and uncompromising. Just like Holbrook as Twain, he delivered. I can’t say the same for very many other elected officials And more’s the pity, and that’s just the way it is.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  22. Ironic, isn’t it?

    Not ironic. But emblematic.

    1)in Trumpspeak FISA abuse refers only to one incident. Trumpism doesn’t care about any actual abuse of the FISA process. It only cares about this because Trumpist thought can not admit the reality that the IC investigating a Presidential candidate with long term embranglements with members of the Putin regime was not merely justified but necessary. Since it can not admit the basic reality, it must invent fictions such as the claim that FISA process was abused.

    2)Trumpism is part of the long history of authoritarian conservatism. To be a Trumpist is to like a strong state and big government. The only difference authoritarian conservatism has with authoritarian leftism is the goals for which state power is used and the people whom state power benefits or suppresses. An ancillary of authoritarian statism is use of police power against the disfavored. FISA surveillance is an example of police power, so it should be no surprise Trumpism is fine with FISA surveillance in principle.

    3)
    The true opposite of authoritarian conservatism is not the authoritarian Left, but libertarian conservativism. Hence its hatred of Amash, Trump, and Never Trump in general. To adopt scholastic terminology Trumpism argues with Leftism about accidents, and sometimes modes. But with libertarianism its arguments are about substance.

    Kishnevi (413847)

  23. Amash, Trump, and Never Trump

    Should have been

    Amash, French, and Never Trump

    Kishnevi (413847)

  24. Gawain’s Ghost (b25cd1) — 6/2/2019 @ 6:34 pm
    Tumultous applause!

    Kishnevi (413847)

  25. Well Joe Biden created fisa because it was more ethical than NSA procedures in the 70s, but it’s become a tool of the left like everything they touch, they must make children hate their parents teaching, they must make the law a luxury,only their people are absolved of any legal consequences. If some moonbat whispers to nick kristof he has to suffer through fiur years of invsstifation.

    Narciso (f43143)

  26. Gawain’s Ghost (b25cd1) — 6/2/2019 @ 6:34 pm

    The reason why obstruction can be charged without evidence of an underlying crime is because the obstruction may have removed or destroyed the evidence of the underlying crime so that the criminal charge could not be filed.

    Mueller doesn’t give that as the reason, and I don;’t think Aash does that either. There are certain kinds of obstruction where that is a possibility, like where records were destroyed, or somebody was dissuaded from testifying but that doesn’t seem to apply to any of Mueller’s instances of possible obstruction – which didn’t actually obstrct anything.

    That is how the law is written. It is also why the mere attempt to obstruct an investigation, even if unsuccessful, results in the charge.

    If it was unsuccessful, it didn;t hide the existence of an underllying crime.

    Amash is certainly correct that Mueller found Trump deserving to be charged.

    Mueller specifically said he avoided doing that. Whether for the reasons he said or implied, or for reasons he didn’t say or hid.

    I had the great pleasure and privilege to see Hal Holbrook perform Mark Twain Tonight! live in 2004. It was the 50th anniversary of the one-man show, and he was touring the country. It’s incredible really, but did you know that Hal Holbrook has been playing Mark Twain for more years than Samuel Clemens wrote using the pseudonym?

    The name was used from at least 1864 through 1910. That’s 46 years. I guess you’re right! Mark Twain used to go on tours too. He had to one time after he lost his money.

    I think al Holbrook used material Mark Twain wrote.

    “First God created the idiot. That was for practice. Then he created Congress.

    Imagine you were an idiot. Imagine you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”

    That’s a little like MArk Twain in the 1870s.

    This wasn’t Hal Holbrook presenting himself as Samuel Clemens portraying Mark Twain. This was Hal Holbrook portraying Mark Twain, which Clemens could not do in his life, because Mark Twain had not yet become Mark Twain, as we know him.)

    Mark Twain did become MArk Twain no later maybe tahn 1880s. Certainly the 1890s. Now Ark Twain never put asketch together like that probably, and Mark Ywains humor was probably more contemporary.

    Still, Clemens was an astute observer and brilliant writer. Perhaps he hoped but could not have known who and what Mark Twain would become to subsequent generations.

    Oh, Mark Twain would mark soe material to ebe mad public after X number of years,even 500 maybe once.. Once in 1880, writing abut his small daughter, he made an aside to the reader in 1960 – how she was old – acttally this daughter didn’t live that long.

    Where are we going here?

    The role of an elected official is much the same [represeting his constituents the way Hal Holbrook represents Mark Twain] , but different in a meaningful way. Yes, he or she should respect the will of constituents. However, at times, more often than not, what the public clamors for goes against its best interests. It is in these times elected officials have a greater responsibility to act in accordance to the law as written, follow the script as it were, whether the public likes it or not. To do otherwise would be a betrayal, because the oath they swore to is to protect the Constitution and abide by the rule of law, not succumb to the madness of crowds.

    That;s just saying that there might be aduty ti impeach wheter the public wants it or not. Might.

    We have a rogue president who lucked into office by happening to run against an unelectable opponent. Now he thinks he can act with impunity without oversight, as if he were above the law.

    It’s not above the law. It’s against te spirit of the law for which he was given discretion, and it’s to try to force another country to do things he has no right or reason to force it to do, and – he even says this – because Congress won’t pass some laws (on grounds for asylum) that he likes.

    Sammy Finkelman (db7fea)

  27. Every day he displays his ignorance, incompetence and ignobility, how unfit he is for the role of president, to the cheers of a dwindling albeit loud madding crowd. There is no accounting for taste, or principle, as large sections of the audience walk way, leaving behind a cult of constituents, who wouldn’t know a pathetic performance of a poorly scripted play by a bad actor from a fake Reality TV show starring a fraud CEO, who never succeeded in business at anthing other than selling his name to gullible investors that subsequently went bankrupt.

    That show was obvously not real business, because in real business people don’t get fired, or shouldn’t get fired, for inevitable mistakes – and he’s not firing anybody for the McCain ship thing is he?

    I don’t think impeachment is like a grand jury. It has nothing to do with statutory crimes even if some grounds for it are also statutiry crimes. It’s a judgment call as to whether what the president ahs done and is doing calls for removing him.

    Sammy Finkelman (db7fea)

  28. Four year of investigations, ultimately paid 5.5 million dollars, then he screwed up again caused another man’s suicide. The obvious suspects were not investigated and they give mueller another job well done.

    Narciso (f43143)

  29. “Ironic, isn’t it?”
    DRJ (15874d) — 6/2/2019 @ 6:33 pm

    And if I have a problem with Mike Nifong, I must support the ACLU and BLM to avoid ironic status.

    Munroe (dab39a)

  30. narciso @31. What are you talking about? I don’t know.

    Sammy Finkelman (db7fea)

  31. Justin Amash got rich from a company that faked US manufacture of Chinese products (and could thus charge a ‘made in America’ premium for them.) He belongs right there under ‘the problem with grifter conservatism’ along with McMullin, Kasich, and the rest of the clown RINO crew.

    He loudly proclaims and hews to principles…that benefit his particular racket and his alone. There is no room for an open borders libertarian in anything that describes itself as “Republican.”

    “Career – 62%
    116th Congress – 92%
    115th Congress – 52%”

    Oh, so when Trump had a House Republican majority, he was half Democrat and a constant spoiler, but when the Democrats took over, he was all SOLIDARITY, BROTHER, I’M VOTING WITH YOU ON ALL THESE BILLS THAT HAVE NO CHANCE OF PASSING TO BURNISH MY CONSERVATIVE CREDS FOR THE RUBES BACK HOME.

    What a pathetic and obvious creature of the Chamber of Commerce! How pathetically transparent are those that claim to admire him for his principles!

    Totally NOT another McMullin (a13823)

  32. Thanks for the well-wishes everybody!

    Posturecorrector (55c527)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1058 secs.