Amash Doubles Down on Trump Impeachment After GOP Blowback: People Arguing ‘Several Falsehoods’
Rep. Justin Amash, the first Republican in Congress to say after reading the Mueller report that President Donald Trump has engaged in “impeachable conduct,” fired back at critics who countered that there were no underlying crimes for Trump to obstruct.
Amash has been getting serious blowback from Republicans like Trump himself, RNC chair Ronna McDaniel, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and more.
In a lengthy Twitter thread, the Michigan congressman said there actually were crimes revealed in the investigation and that “obstruction of justice does not require the prosecution of an underlying crime.”
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:
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 20, 2019
1. They say there were no underlying crimes.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 20, 2019
In fact, there were many crimes revealed by the investigation, some of which were charged, and some of which were not but are nonetheless described in Mueller’s report.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 20, 2019
2. They say obstruction of justice requires an underlying crime.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 20, 2019
In fact, obstruction of justice does not require the prosecution of an underlying crime, and there is a logical reason for that. Prosecutors might not charge a crime precisely *because* obstruction of justice denied them timely access to evidence that could lead to a prosecution.
— 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
3. They imply the president should be permitted to use any means to end what he claims to be a frivolous investigation, no matter how unreasonable his claim.
— 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
4. They imply “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” requires charges of a statutory crime or misdemeanor.
— 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
Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com
