Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI) on Saturday took to Twitter to explain why he believes impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump should occur. According to Amash, Attorney General William Barr "deliberately misrepresented [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller's report" into the alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
President Trump took to Twitter Sunday morning to address Amash's calls for impeachment, saying Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report cleared him of collusion and obstruction of justice. Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said Amash is "parroting the Democrats' talking points on Russia."
Conservatives weren't happy with Amash and made their feelings about his claims known. Despite the backlash, Amash took to Twitter on Monday to, once again, give his take on the Mueller report:
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
We get it, Justin. You think President Trump committed crimes. You think Trump should be charged for it. The majority of people on your side of the aisle disagree with you. Just how long are you going to keep pushing this narrative? Right now you're sounding about as obsessed as the Democrats. In fact, your talking points mirror the Democrats' so much that Rep. Rashida Tlaib wants you to cosponsor her impeachment proceedings.
At what point do we, as a country, move on? How many people need to "investigate" the investigators and the investigations before every politician is satisfied? Because this is getting beyond ridiculous.