Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) on Monday doubled down on his critical remarks of President Trump, detailing in a series of tweets why he thinks the case can be made that Trump should be impeached for obstruction of justice.
“People who say there were no underlying crimes and therefore the president could not have intended to illegally obstruct the investigation—and therefore cannot be impeached—are resting their argument on several falsehoods,” Amash tweeted.
In a series of subsequent tweets, Amash sought to shoot down a number of prominent defenses of the president’s behavior illustrated in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.
Amash argued that it would be inaccurate to say “there were no underlying crimes” revealed by Mueller’s investigation; that obstruction of justice requires an underlying crime; that the president should be allowed to use any means to end a so-called frivolous investigation; and that the threshold of “high crimes and misdemeanors” requires actual criminal charges.
1. They say there were no underlying crimes.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 20, 2019
2. They say obstruction of justice requires an underlying crime.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 20, 2019
If an underlying crime were required, then prosecutors could charge obstruction of justice only if it were unsuccessful in completely obstructing the investigation. This would make no sense.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 20, 2019
In fact, the president could not have known whether every single person Mueller investigated did or did not commit any crimes.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 20, 2019
In fact, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 20, 2019
……..
- Discussion
-
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.