Connect with us

News

Anti-Trump Republican Who Called for POTUS Impeachment STEPS DOWN From Freedom Caucus

DEUCES!!

John Salvatore

Published

on

He became the first sitting Republican in Congress to say President Trump committed “impeachable offenses.”

He will now face a primary challenge from a pro-Trump Republican in 2020.

On Monday night, Rep. Justin Amash (MI) stepped down from the Freedom Caucus.

Trending: There Is Evidence That Does NOT Support Criminal Charge of Cop In Floyd’s Death, Says County Prosecutor

From Fox News:

take our poll - story continues below

Trump or Biden, who will win?

  • Why wait until November 3? Show all of America who you're voting for in 2020  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Michigan Repubican Rep. Justin Amash announced Monday evening he was leaving the influential conservative House Freedom Caucus, just weeks after he attracted the ire of his colleagues by arguing in Twitter posts that President Trump had committed impeachable offenses, Fox News has learned.

Amash, speaking at a Freedom Caucus board meeting, insisted his departure was voluntary. Amash said he did not want to continue to be a “further distraction” for the caucus, which is chaired by North Carolina GOP Rep. Mark Meadows.

Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, a member of the Freedom Caucus, told Fox News’ “Ingraham Angle” Monday evening that Meadows and Amash mutually came to the decision after several conversations.

WATCH:

Justin has set his sights on AG Bill Barr.

LOOK:

Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented key aspects of Mueller’s report and decisions in the investigation, which has helped further the president’s false narrative about the investigation.

Mueller’s report says he chose not to decide whether Trump broke the law because there’s an official DoJ opinion that indicting a sitting president is unconstitutional, and because of concerns about impacting the president’s ability to govern and pre-empting possible impeachment.

But, in fact, Mueller finds considerable evidence that several of Trump’s actions detailed in the report meet the elements of obstruction, and Mueller’s constitutional and prudential issues with indicting a sitting president would preclude indictment regardless of what he found.

Barr quotes Mueller saying the evidence didn’t establish that Trump was personally involved in crimes related to Russian election interference, and Barr then claims that Mueller found that fact relevant to whether the president had the intent to obstruct justice.

As a result of Barr’s March 24 letter, the public and Congress were misled. Mueller himself notes this in a March 27 letter to Barr, saying that Barr’s letter “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions.”

To “alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen,” Mueller urged the release of the report’s introductions and executive summaries, which he had told Barr “accurately summarize [Mueller’s] Office’s work and conclusions.”

Barr was asked about reports “that members of [Mueller’s] team are frustrated…with the limited information included in your March 24th letter, that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?”

In subsequent statements and testimony, Barr used further misrepresentations to help build the president’s false narrative that the investigation was unjustified.

But whether there’s enough evidence for a conviction of a specific crime which Mueller thought was appropriate to charge is a different and much higher standard than whether the people whom Mueller investigated had done anything worthy of investigation.

For instance, Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner took a meeting with a Russian lawyer whom Trump Jr. had been told worked for the Russian government and would provide documents to “incriminate Hillary,” as part of the Russian government’s “support for Mr. Trump.”

Barr says the White House “fully cooperated” with the investigation and that Mueller “never sought” or “pushed” to get more from the president, but the report says Mueller unsuccessfully sought an interview with the president for over a year.

The president instead gave written answers to questions submitted by the special counsel. Those answers are often incomplete or unresponsive. Mueller found them “inadequate” and again sought to interview the president.

Barr has so far successfully used his position to sell the president’s false narrative to the American people. This will continue if those who have read the report do not start pushing back on his misrepresentations and share the truth.

Save conservative media!

News

Liberal Legal Scholar Slams Twitter Over Censoring Trump; Declares ‘Free Speech’ Ultimate ‘Loser’

Published

on

Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law scholar recently warned that Twitter’s choice to fact-check and hide certain tweets from President Trump threatens the concept of free speech in the Unites States. Turley, a liberal, published a blog Friday that said, “Twitter is now making the case for government action to monitor and control social media. The ultimate loser will be free speech.” Thursday night, President Trump reacted to some of the violence and looting happening in the city of Minneapolis over the death of George Floyd, calling those responsible for the chaos “thugs” and threatened to cut loose the military in the city to get control over the situation. In a now hidden tweet, Trump said, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Twitter then hid the tweet, requiring users to click an arrow in order for it to be seen, stating that it broke the rules by “glorifying violence.” Here’s more from The Washington Examiner: “I am still leery of the government intervening on social media,” Turley wrote. “Free speech has few advocates in this fight. It is primary a struggle between Twitter, Trump, and the Democrats over who controls such speech.” Turley said he did not agree with the content of Trump’s tweets about the Minneapolis protesters but that they should not be censored. “Twitter had the chance to admit error and return to neutrality in the interest of free speech. It is clearly more concerned with expressing its views than preserving its forum,” he said. “Frankly, I would not care about such self-inflicted wounds except that free speech will likely suffer the collateral damage from Twitter’s glorifying speech controls.” Turley is right. Twitter has had plenty of opportunities over the last few years to change their strategies involving the engagement of content posted to their site. Instead, they…

Continue Reading

News

Twitter Tags White House Tweet With Warning Label Over Message It Says Broke Rules About ‘Glorifying Violence’

Published

on

Twitter continues to go at it with President Trump, even after he signed an executive order that labeled social media platforms as publishers, thus opening them up to lawsuits over silencing opinions. The White House poked Twitter and basically dared them to put a warning label on the president’s tweet concerning the violence in Minneapolis over the death of George Floyd for a second time. They did. One would think that Twitter would get the message, but they aren’t. Guess they’ll have to get sued a bunch and lose a lot of money before they finally understand that folks, especially the president, aren’t going to take the censorship anymore. Here are more details from The Washington Examiner: Twitter said the White House account “violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence” after it repeated a tweet from the president that called the protesters “THUGS” and implied they could be shot. This happened after Trump first posted the tweet on his personal account early Friday morning, and Twitter placed a warning label on it. https://twitter.com/JTHVerhovek/status/1266363516153364480 “These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen,” the tweet read. “Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!” Twitter didn’t remove the tweets posted by the White House and from Trump’s account, but they are hidden and require users to click an arrow in order for them to be seen. There is a message placed over the tweets that says: “This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible.” As you can see, liberals…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

 
Send this to a friend