Justin Amash Smashes Every GOP Trump Defense in a Single Tweet Thread

Republican Congressman Justin Amash isn’t taking criticisms regarding his comments against the president lightly.

Amash recently suggested that Trump’s actions as president, as detailed in the redacted Mueller report released last month, demonstrate “impeachable conduct,” according to previous reporting from HillReporter.com.

That led to a spate of conservatives lambasting the Michigan lawmaker, including the president himself, who stated he didn’t believe Amash when he said he had read the full Mueller report.

….he would see that it was nevertheless strong on NO COLLUSION and, ultimately, NO OBSTRUCTION…Anyway, how do you Obstruct when there is no crime and, in fact, the crimes were committed by the other side? Justin is a loser who sadly plays right into our opponents hands!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 19, 2019

Amash responded to criticisms from members of his fellow party on Monday afternoon, defending himself in a lengthy Twitter thread and debunking every last one of the arguments made against his original statement.

“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,” he began.

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

Amash pointed out that those who suggested there were no underlying crimes within the investigation itself are wrong — some crimes were described in the report and resulted in charges. Others, he said, did not result in any charges “but are nonetheless described in Mueller’s report.”

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

Amash went on, chiseling away at another argument made by his critics that the lack of a charged crime meant obstruction couldn’t be considered.

“In fact, obstruction of justice does not require the prosecution of an underlying crime,” Amash pointed out, addding that no evidence of an underlying crime existing may be “precisely *because* obstruction of justice denied [investigators] timely access to evidence that could lead to a prosecution.”

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

It would “make no sense” for the law to work in this way, Amash added, because prosecutors could only make a charge if the obstruction attempt had been unsuccessful.

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

Critics of Amash also implied that the president should be able to end any investigation he wants to, him alone being able to deem whatever he wants as “frivolous” or not. But that’s a hard pill to swallow, too, Amash said, stating that the “president could not have known whether every single person Mueller investigated did or did not commit any crimes.

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 other words, how could the president know it was a frivolous investigation without the investigation being able to uncover what was reasonable or not to pursue?

Finally, Amash debunked a claim made by Trump himself in the past: that impeachment of the president can only occur if a specific crime or misdemeanor is charged against him.

Amash noted in his final tweet in the thread that “‘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.”

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

According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation, Amash’s assessment on “high crimes and misdemeanors” is spot on.

The founders, it turns out, adopted the phrase from English (and American) Common Law, which at the time of its inclusion in the U.S. Constitution meant the legal right to remove from office members of the King’s government if they had abused their offices for their own gain. The same principles were meant to be applied to members of the president’s cabinet.