Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) took to Twitter again on Monday to defend his belief that President Trump participated in “impeachable conduct” related to his efforts to obstruct special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
In a Twitter thread, Amash said those who believe Trump didn’t intend to illegally obstruct justice so he therefore can’t be impeached are “resting their argument on several falsehoods.” He said in his thread that there were “crimes” revealed by Mueller’s probe, including several that were left uncharged. He also argued that there doesn’t necessarily have to be an “underlying crime” in order for obstruction to have occurred.
Amash announced over the weekend that, after reading the redacted version of the Mueller report, Trump’s obstruction efforts were impeachable and Attorney General William Barr’s misled the public with his handling of the report. Amash was met with criticism from Republican leadership and Trump himself, who slammed the Republican lawmaker for being a “loser.” Not long after Amash clicked “send” on his criticism, he also earned himself a Republican challenger.
Read Amash’s full thread below:
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
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
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
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
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
