Justin Amash Fires Back At GOP Critics Of Trump Impeachment
A GOP congressman who said Saturday that President Donald Trump “engaged in impeachable conduct” reiterated his case Monday on Twitter.
Over the weekend, Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) said on Twitter that after reading the complete Mueller Report, he believes Trump “engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment.”
Naturally, Amash’s comments angered the president, who called the congressman “a total lightweight.” In addition, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) called the congressman “courageous,” but said he does not think impeachment “is the right way to go.”
Amash’s comments even inspired a fellow Michigan Republican to mount a primary challenge against him.
On Monday, Amash answered his critics with another series of tweets, firing back against the arguments proffered by those saying the president should not be impeached.
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
Also on HuffPost
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.)
Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas)
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)
Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.)
Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.)
Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.)
Rep. Walter Jones (D-N.C.)
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)
Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.)
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R)
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Love HuffPost? Become a founding member of HuffPost Plus today.
This article originally appeared on HuffPost.