Rand Paul: Comey Firing Was Right, Congressman Justin Amash: Comey Firing Was Wrong

Rand Paul and Justin Amash

Two Libertarian Republicans' differing views are sure to have Libertarian's scratching their heads.   Rand Paul and Justin Amash have been the favorite sons of the Libertarians who have been trying but failing miserably to get Libertarian candidates in national office. Both though have different views on the firing of former FBI director James Comey.

Senator Rand Paul

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) told FOX & Friends Wednesday morning that he lost confidence in fired FBI Director James Comey a long time ago. He said any accusation of Russian collusion in the election is a "huge myth" and a product of sour grapes.

"It's sour grapes over the election," Paul said. "The whole Russian thing has been propagated by people who are upset that they lost the election. They've sunk their teeth into something, they think they'll eventually find something. But everything is sort built upon a huge myth as far as I'm concerned. I don't think there has been any facts presented that anybody broke the low and yet this goes on and on."

Paul said Comey's firing couldn't have happened soon enough:

SEN. PAUL: I think it couldn't have happened soon enough. I lost confidence in Comey a long time ago. In fact, I never even voted for his confirmation because I doubted his ability to run the FBI. But I would say that most of America thought that he botched the Clinton email scandal. All the Democrats thought he said too much and all the Republicans thought he didn't do enough. So he had all the confidence of almost no one. Chuck Schumer said six months ago that he lost confidence in him. 

But I thought it was especially telling in the letter that the [Deputy] Attorney General sent, he said Eric Holder said that Comey had violated long-standing Department of Justice procedures. And I think without question that's true. And I think he politicized something by making way too many statements to the press. So I think it is time for new leadership at the FBI.

Republican Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.) has signed onto legislation from Democrats to create an independent commission to investigate Russian election interference, becoming the second GOP lawmaker to do so.

Amash became a cosponsor of the Protecting Our Democracy Act this week after President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, his spokeswoman confirmed Thursday following a BuzzFeed report.

Amash had indicated on Tuesday in the hours after Comey’s bombshell firing that he was inclined to back the legislation.


“My staff and I are reviewing legislation to establish an independent commission on Russia. The second paragraph of this letter is bizarre,” Amash tweeted, referring to the paragraph in Trump’s letter to Comey that states “I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation.”

The bill, authored by Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), has been endorsed by all 193 House Democrats, along with four delegates who caucus with them.

Before Amash, Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) was the only Republican co-sponsor.

Another Congressman Endorses Jeb Bush. Why?

Michigan will hold it's presidential primary on March 8th,

Mike Bishop

2016.  

Many are asking wondering what the fascination with Jeb Bush is.   Jeb has struggled in the polls.  He is also considered the heart of the Republican establishment.  

Jeb’s recent debate performances makes one want to believe that even he doesn’t want the position.

Michigan Republican Leadership though stands behind Jeb Bush as additional legislators jump on to this sinking ship.

Just this week Congressman Mike Bishop endorsed Jeb Bush for the Republican presidential nomination.

Mike Bishop,  who is a a first-term Congressman resides in Rochester joins first time Congressman  Dave Trott who is from Birmingham, in endorsing Jeb Bush. Both of these Congressman represent the majority of Oakland County.

Mike Bishop may have a tough race ahead as former Hollywood socialite and actress Melissa Gilbert (D) of Howell Michigan has announced her run for Michigan's 8th Congressional District.  

Melissa Gilbert though has had a bumpy start as it was discovered she owes over $400,000 in back taxes and her husband has been donating to her campaign rather than paying off her tax debt. 

One has to wonder though, if an establishment endorsement will have an effect on Bishop's re-election race.

Joining Bishop and Trott in their support for Jeb Bush is Congressman Fred Upton.

The remaining Republican Congressmen have either endorsed other candidates or have yet to endorse a candidate.

Congressman John Moolenaar who resides in Midland has endorsed U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida in September.

Congresswoman and rumored Gubernatorial candidate Candice Miller,  who resides in Harrison Township has endorsed former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiornia during  mid-September Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference .

Congressman Justin Amash, who is from Cascade Township,  was the first to endorse when he announced in May of this year that he was endorsing libertarian-leaning U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. 

Congressman  Dan Benishek of Crystal Falls,  Tim Walberg of Tipton and Bill Huizenga of Zeeland have yet to endorse a presidential candidate. 

Trump Responds: John McCain has done little for our Veterans

 Donald Trump issued a statement tonight regarding what he said about John McCain.  He is not apologizing and doubling down.

"I am not a fan of John McCain because he has done so little for our Veterans and he should know better than anybody what the Veterans need, especially in regards to the VA. He is yet another all talk, no action politician who spends too much time on television and not enough time doing his job and helping the Vets. He is also allowing our military to decrease substantially in size and strength, something which should never be allowed to happen.
 Furthermore, he was extremely disrespectful to the thousands upon thousands of people, many of whom happen to be his constituents, that came to listen to me speak about illegal immigration in Phoenix last week by calling them "crazies".
 These were not "crazies"---these were great American citizens.
 I have great respect for all those who serve in our military including those that weren't captured and are also heroes.
 I want to strengthen our military and take care of our Veterans. I want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN especially for those that serve to protect our freedom. I am fighting for our Veterans!"

Below is the full video of Trump's statement yesterday on John McCain being a war hero.   John McCain who has a history of calling people names such as last year calling fellow U.S. Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee as well as Congressman Justin Amash "Wacko Birds", decided to call 15,000 of his constituents as well as Donald Trump "Crazies."

Outgoing One Term Michigan Congressman Goes Out With Epic Rant

Last evening. soon to be former Republican

 Congressman Kerry Bentivolio went on an epic farewell rant/speech on his Facebook page.

 He blamed everyone but himself for his vote in the continuing resolution that was just passed and stopped the government shut down.  The resolution though  also funds Obamacare and Obama's amnesty program for the next 9 months.  Keep in mind that last summer Kerry was touting a bill called "Read The Bill Act" but said he couldn't read the bill as he was in cubicle and didn't have time.  Why vote for the bill if you didn't know what was in it? Vote present at the very worst.   Why didn't you follow the lead of whom you said you have respect for like Justin Amash or Michelle Bachmann? 

Here is what Kerry wrote on his facebook page:

In keeping with my status and rating as the most transparent member of Congress, I offer this explanation and commentary regarding the “rule” vote that allowed the bill to come to the floor.
Many claim my vote ushered in a $1.1 trillion dollar budget for the coming year. I am deeply honored how many think I had the power to determine so quickly the financial fate of our nation! However, this is not the case.

Do check my voting record--I have never before voted “no” on a rule vote. This, I admit, I did on a whim, a last hurrah. Let me give a little background on the circumstances of that fateful day Thursday, December 11th that I changed my vote from a ‘nay’ to a ‘yea’. A week prior, my staff and I were moved to a small cubicle with one computer and one desk. We shared a printer with others not returning to the House this January. I sat in the House cloakroom off the floor of Congress most of the day discussing various issues and concerns with retiring Congressman Latham from Iowa since he and I were in the same situation, though for different reasons. I obtained a copy of the 1600 page bill and read the first 25-30 pages a few hours before the rule vote.

I complained to Congressman Latham that I was disappointed in the proposed bill from what I heard, having no time to actually read the entire bill and how Congressman Mulvaney’s amendment to the bill to defund President Obama’s amnesty program failed to pass. I informed him and Congresswoman Candice Miller, acting in behalf of the Majority Whip, that they could not count on my vote for the 1.1 trillion spending bill.

When the house called to vote on the rule, I walked the seven feet beyond the cloak room door and voted “no” on the rule. I was the first vote. Congressman Latham laughed and asked why I voted “no” since few Republicans ever vote “no” on a rule. The rule vote simply stops all debates and amendments and brings the bill to the floor for consideration. I mentioned to him it really did not matter since it would pass anyway and no one really cared how I voted on the “rule”. Within minutes a GOP aide came in asking why I voted no on the rule. I waved him off politely indicating to him it really didn’t matter.
Within 20 minutes Speaker Boehner and other members of Congress asked if I would change my vote. I was perplexed why there was this much attention given a departing member’s vote on a rule. I walked back onto the floor and watched the tally of votes on the overhead side panels. 160-160, 165-166, 175-174, etc. While on the floor I stood within five feet of Congressmen Amash, Jordan, Mulvaney, and several other “conservative” members of Congress. Not one talked or discussed with me the implications, plans or strategy, consequences or what reasons they had to vote “no” on the rule. I asked what was happening and no one gave me a reply other than I should change my vote.

What I knew, as did they, that a “no” would mean re-negotiating a new bill. Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader would force the GOP to make concessions. I realized the Speaker was dead set against shutting the government down. A 30-60 day Continued Resolution (CR) was not an option because neither Harry Reid nor the President would sign it. There were “rumors” that the Democrats were planning on delaying social security, VA disability and retirement checks just before Christmas, blaming it on the GOP for failing to negotiate a funding bill both the Senate and President would sign. The Speaker was up against the wall, between a rock and hard place. After all, did not the President order open air memorials fenced and gated during the last shut down and hired Park Rangers to guard the otherwise “unguarded” tourist sites on the mall? What else would you expect from our Commander in Tyranny? The elderly in my district need those social security checks!

What many people do not realize or discuss in the media is the possibility that leadership would immediately offer a two-day CR funding the government over the weekend while they negotiated another bill with Democrats until they received enough votes and have had a bill the Senate, under Harry Reid, and the President would sign. Both the leadership and Democrats do not like Conservatives and we would not have had much influence on the final bill. Any future bill could be worse than the bill proposed on the floor that day. I was not willing under any circumstances, to give Nancy Pelosi any negotiating power, and for that reason alone I decided to change my vote to a “yea” on the rule.

Many conservative members changed their vote as well to make it a tie. After Congressman Stutzman changed his vote, the tally read 213 Yea and 213 Nay, effectively passing the rule. Congressman Stutzman is an excellent member and serves his constituents well. I am honored to have served with him as I am with other members of Congress.

I changed my vote to make the final tally 214 Yea and 212 Nay. I being the first and last to vote on the rule.
Immediately afterwards, many members of Congress thanked me and called me a “true patriot.” I did not need to hear those comments. I proved that years ago serving my country in the military. I responded to each by saying, “Merry Christmas.” Not because of my vote, rather because they were all going home immediately after voting that day, and I would not see them again. The Speaker came up to me and thanked me for changing my vote and said he owed me a great deal. I smiled at him wishing him and his family a Merry Christmas, too.

After voting “NO” on the $1.1 trillion spending bill, a member of Congress mentioned a fellow member of Congress and friend was very upset that I had changed my rule vote. When I heard that comment I became very concerned. I realized then I MAY have made a mistake since my friend, a member of Congress I most respected, was disappointed. I began to worry.

Within minutes she came up to me and asked why I changed my vote. “Michele, I said, I did not want to give the floor to Pelosi.” She asked if anyone promised me anything to get me to change my vote. I told her the truth and replied “No.” Then I asked her why no one contacted me or discussed with me any plans or strategy. I told her had she talked with me I might have considered sticking to my “no” vote. I have great respect and admiration for Congresswoman Bachmann and, other than my wife, have never met a greater woman. She is a tireless worker, a true patriot on all the issues, dedicated and takes no prisoners. Her retirement from Congress is America’s loss.

After the “rule” votes most everyone left the floor to wait for the call for the final bill, and I returned to sit with Congressman Latham again in the cloak room. Congressman Latham looked up at me and said, “So your vote didn’t matter and no one cared, huh?”

I replied, “Holy ****!”

It has been said and written that I did this (changed my rule vote) to get “even” for the lack of support my fellow conservatives gave me during the primary election. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Those that know me will tell you I am not that kind of person and the thought never entered my mind.
I maintain to this day a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union and a 90% from Conservative Review. I can surmise these conjectures are nothing more than my former opponent’s political machine at work in the social media and “bought and paid for” mainstream reporters. After all, they said in semi-private meetings during the primary campaign they would take the seat and then destroy me once and for all.

Conservatives who want nothing less than 100% are living in fantasyland along with the magic carpets and genie lanterns. While many of those conservatives and conservative groups received ample cash to stay out of my race, and Washington is a place where principles are bought by the highest bidder like stock on the stock exchange, my principles remain intact having been bought and paid for previously by soldiers, sailors, Marines and Airmen on the beaches of Normandy, in the jungles of Vietnam and desert of Iraq and many other places.

I am proud to have served in two wars for my country, the only member of Congress to serve in both Vietnam and Iraq, and an additional two-year deployment in Washington, D.C. No promises were made, no twisting of arms, but there was a bit of intimidation, which I ignored. There was hope after the vote that we might negotiate a sixty-day CR, but that hope evaporated within hours after the rule vote when leadership obtained enough Democratic votes to pass the bill. I voted NO on the bill itself as I previously advised the GOP leadership. There was neither malice aforethought nor vengefulness motivating my actions.

A fellow member of Congress said by changing my vote Nancy Pelosi became an afterthought, and politically dead. Then, knowing me as I often refer to DC as the Land of Oz, or use Mark Levin’s Maldorf designation, presented me with an old broom. “What’s this?” I asked. “You killed the wicked witch of the West! Congratulations! Here is her broom, she isn’t flyin anymore!” Does anyone know where that guy is behind the curtain?

Professor Gruber claimed voters are stupid. I strongly disagree. They are often intentionally misinformed by a social and mainstream media and hence become low-information voters. I often said that if I needed to lie to my constituents to keep this job, then I did not want it. I have often said, too, that the hardest thing to find in Washington, D. C. is the truth. It remains the case today.

However, since I have no real plans to return to Congress and many of you think I am responsible for ushering in the $1.1 Trillion spending bill I did not support nor vote for, so be it. Here is the story as it happened, from my perspective. If you wish to remember me as the crazy reindeer farmer, Santa impersonator, accidental Congressman who is responsible for that terrible bill passed in Congress before Christmas 2014, so be it too. It is amazing what a $6 million campaign in hard and soft money can purchase. I will pray for all of you, especially my country I fought for 30 years trying to protect. God bless you, and I wish you all a very Merry Christmas.

Could you vote have been a last payback to Speaker of The House John Boehner for coming to Michigan to compaign on your behalf?

Congressional Bill H.R. 4681 To Allow Unlimited Access Of Communications Of Every American Without Warrant

By: Rep. Justin Amash (R)
3rd Congressional District Michigan

When I learned that the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2015 was being rushed to the floor for a vote—with little debate and only a voice vote expected (i.e., simply declared "passed" with almost nobody in the room)—I asked my legislative staff to quickly review the bill for unusual language. What they discovered is one of the most egregious sections of law I've encountered during my time as a representative: It grants the executive branch virtually unlimited access to the communications of every American.

On Wednesday afternoon, I went to the House floor to demand a roll call vote on the bill so that everyone's vote would have to be recorded. I also sent the letter below to every representative.

With more time to spread the word, we would have stopped this bill, which passed 325-100. Thanks to the 99 other representatives—44 Republicans and 55 Democrats—who voted to protect our rights and uphold the Constitution. And thanks to my incredibly talented staff.

###

Block New Spying on U.S. Citizens: Vote “NO” on H.R. 4681 (Letter Justin Amash's Staff Sent To All Congressman) 

Dear Colleague:

The intelligence reauthorization bill, which the House will vote on today, contains a troubling new provision that for the first time statutorily authorizes spying on U.S. citizens without legal process.

Last night, the Senate passed an amended version of the intelligence reauthorization bill with a new Sec. 309—one the House never has considered. Sec. 309 authorizes “the acquisition, retention, and dissemination” of nonpublic communications, including those to and from U.S. persons. The section contemplates that those private communications of Americans, obtained without a court order, may be transferred to domestic law enforcement for criminal investigations.

To be clear, Sec. 309 provides the first statutory authority for the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of U.S. persons’ private communications obtained without legal process such as a court order or a subpoena. The administration currently may conduct such surveillance under a claim of executive authority, such as E.O. 12333. However, Congress never has approved of using executive authority in that way to capture and use Americans’ private telephone records, electronic communications, or cloud data.

Supporters of Sec. 309 claim that the provision actually reins in the executive branch’s power to retain Americans’ private communications. It is true that Sec. 309 includes exceedingly weak limits on the executive’s retention of Americans’ communications. With many exceptions, the provision requires the executive to dispose of Americans’ communications within five years of acquiring them—although, as HPSCI admits, the executive branch already follows procedures along these lines.

In exchange for the data retention requirements that the executive already follows, Sec. 309 provides a novel statutory basis for the executive branch’s capture and use of Americans’ private communications. The Senate inserted the provision into the intelligence reauthorization bill late last night. That is no way for Congress to address the sensitive, private information of our constituents—especially when we are asked to expand our government’s surveillance powers.

I urge you to join me in voting “no” on H.R. 4681, the intelligence reauthorization bill, when it comes before the House today.

/s/

Justin Amash

Member of Congress

###

U.S. Representatives Who Voted NO:

Amash

Bass

Bentivolio

Blumenauer

Bonamici

Brat

Bridenstine

Brooks (AL)

Broun (GA)

Burgess

Chu

Clark (MA)

Clarke (NY)

Clawson (FL)

Cohen

Conyers

Cummings

DeFazio

DelBene

DesJarlais

Doggett

Doyle

Duncan (SC)

Duncan (TN)

Eshoo

Farr

Garamendi

Garcia

Garrett

Gibson

Gohmert

Gosar

Gowdy

Graves (GA)

Grayson

Griffith (VA)

Grijalva

Gutiérrez

Hahn

Hanabusa

Hastings (FL)

Heck (WA)

Holt

Honda

Huelskamp

Huffman

Jackson Lee

Jones

Jordan

Kaptur

Kildee

Kingston

Labrador

Lee (CA)

Lewis

Lofgren

Lowenthal

Lummis

Massie

Matsui

McClintock

McCollum

McDermott

McGovern

Meadows

Mica

Moore

Mulvaney

Nadler

Nugent

O'Rourke

Pallone

Perry

Pocan

Poe (TX)

Polis

Posey

Rangel

Ribble

Roe (TN)

Rohrabacher

Salmon

Sanford

Schakowsky

Scott, Austin

Sensenbrenner

Serrano

Speier

Stockman

Swalwell (CA)

Takano

Tierney

Tipton

Velázquez

Waters

Weber (TX)

Welch

Woodall

Yarmuth

Yoho

Justin A. Amash is an attorney, and Republican member of Congress. In January 2011, he began serving as the U.S. Representative for Michigan's 3rd congressional district.

California Republican Says Justin Amash Should Be Shot

Glenn Ratcliff is a Republican running for Assembly in California. He says Michigan Congressman Justin Amash should be shot.

Threatening other officials is a Class C or D felony, usually carrying maximum penalties of 5 or 10 years under 18 U.S.C. § 875, 18 U.S.C. § 876 and other statutes, that is investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. When national boundaries are transcended by such a threat, it is considered a terrorist threat.  When a threat is made against a judge, it can be considered obstruction of justice. Threatening federal officials' family members is also a federal crime; in enacting the law, the Committee on the Judiciary stated that "Clearly it is a proper Federal function to respond to terrorists and other criminals who seek to influence the making of Federal policies and interfere with the administration of justice by attacking close relatives of those entrusted with these tasks."

There are three elements of the offense of making an illegal threat: (i) there must be a transmission in interstate commerce; (ii) there must be a communication containing the threat; (iii) and the threat must be a threat to injure the person of another.

Fellow Congressmen Falsely Accuse Congressman Justin Amash of Siding With Democrats and Being Al Qaeda's Best Friend

Establishment Republicans who have for years operated under the threat of "getting primaried" by conservative challengers are hoping to turn the tables in Michigan, where there’s an all-out brawl to oust tea party favorite Rep. Justin Amash.

Congressman Justin Amash (R)
3rd District Michigan

Amash has become a polarizing figure within the Republican caucus, according to Politico, and some of his colleagues aren’t pulling punches in taking on the Michigander and his hardline anti-tax, anti-spending, anti-federal government stances.

Retiring Congressman Mike Rogers 8th District MI (R)

Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., called Amash, "al-Qaeda’s best friend in the Congress."  While at the same time a fellow Michigan Republican, Rep. Mike Rogers was entertaining an Iman who has ties to terrorist organizations.  Could it be that Justin Amash is trying to end the NSA spying on American Citizens which Rogers and Nunes both support?

Rogers said Amash is "completely out of line with" voters in his district.

"He votes more with the Democrats than with the Republicans, and that’s not out of principle, that’s out of him branding himself as something different," said Rogers, who has contributed $5,000 to Amash’s primary opponent, Brian Ellis.

Amash’s countered: "I vote less often with (House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, the real San Francisco Democrat, than any member of Congress."

How can you vote with Democrats more than Republicans and rarely vote on the same side as Pelosi, the House’s top Democrat? Something isn’t adding up here.

How Amash has voted

Looking at Amash’s record on  OpenCongress.org, a website from the nonpartisan Sunshine Foundation that aggregates voting records.

The site also studies which colleague on each side of the aisle votes with members of Congress most and least since January 2013.

Pelosi’s profile page says the Republican she least often votes with is, indeed, Amash. The two have been on the same side of just 22 percent of votes.

That’s partly achieved by Amash staking out positions that put him against most of Congress on widely bipartisan measures.

For example, Amash was one of only two House members to vote against a bill to reauthorize spending for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to assist local law enforcement agencies in training for and coordinating efforts to rescue missing children. On Facebook, Amash said the bill created federal bureaucracy and the tax dollars would be better spent locally. (Republicans can criticize Amash’s record, but he’s unique in his diligence about explaining nearly all of his votes on Facebook.)

So if Amash seldom votes with Pelosi, is it possible he still votes with Democrats more, as Rogers said? In a word, no. 

As a whole, Amash has more often sided with the GOP caucus. Amash’s profile on OpenCongress.org says he has voted with his party 82 percent of the time since January 2013.

There are certainly many Republicans who toe the party line more closely. Rogers, for example, was with the majority of his GOP colleagues for 96 percent of roll calls since 2013. But there are Republicans who vote with the GOP less often than Amash this Congress, too, though none in Michigan.

On some issues, though, Amash has joined forces with Democrats. His high-profile fight to curb NSA funding for metadata collection — which put Amash on the map with civil libertarians — enlisted a coalition of Republicans and Democrats weary of the military-industrial complex.

The vote on his measure narrowly failed, with 111 Democrats supporting it — despite strong objections from President Barack Obama — alongside 94 Republicans.

So where does Rogers’ claim come from?

Rogers  noted that in 2012, a Congressional Quarterly analysis found Amash’s votes put him on the same side of President Barack Obama 51 percent of the time..

The analysis only looked at 61 votes that year where Obama had a stated position. It includes many consequential bills, but it’s just a fraction of the total votes taken in 2012. Further, in 2011 and 2013, Amash was opposite Obama 75 percent of the time.

But it did help us find a few interesting examples of Amash voting with Obama’s favored positions. 

For example, Amash voted "no" on a GOP bill in 2012 that would have extended lower rates for student loans and pay for it with cuts to Obamacare. It passed the House despite a veto threat from Obama.

On his Facebook page, Amash said he sided against it because he didn’t believe the cuts covered the cost of lowering student loan rates.

Also in 2012, he voted against Republicans on a bill to replace across-the-board spending cuts (the so-called "sequester") with other more targeted cuts, while lifting spending caps on the military. Obama, instead, wanted to replace the sequester with tax increases and cut in other ways; Amash said he opposed the Republican proposal because it increased spending.

More recently, Amash was one of just three Republicans (and 20 lawmakers in total) not to vote for more sanctions against Iran last July. At the time, the Obama administration was asking for some leeway from Congress to approach the newly elected Iranian regime with alternatives. Amash later said of his vote: "If our goal is peaceful reform within Iran, it would be wise to give the new president an opportunity to talk before turning to new threats."

But again, these are a relatively small number of high-profile votes. Congressional Quarterly found Amash never voted with his party less than 85 percent of the time in a given yea