 |
| Republican criticizes Trump and now faces a backlash from the base. |
The Republicans fear Trump and his "base."
Amash, a libertarian-leaning conservative made remarks on social media earned him a nickname from Trump and a primary challenger for 2020.
Never a fan of @justinamash, a total lightweight who opposes me and some of our great Republican ideas and policies just for the sake of getting his name out there through controversy. If he actually read the biased Mueller Report, “composed” by 18 Angry Dems who hated Trump,....— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 19, 2019
The Grand Rapids Republican supports Trump nearly 100% of the time. However when it came to the Robert Mueller report in which it didn't exonerate Trump from Russia meddling, Amash spoke the "I" word.
Here are my principal conclusions:— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019
1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.
2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.
3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.
4. Few members of Congress have read the report.
I offer these conclusions only after having read Mueller’s redacted report carefully and completely, having read or watched pertinent statements and testimony, and having discussed this matter with my staff, who thoroughly reviewed materials and provided me with further analysis.— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019
In comparing Barr’s principal conclusions, congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller’s report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s analysis and findings.— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019
Barr’s misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice.— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019
Under our Constitution, the president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” While “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined, the context implies conduct that violates the public trust.— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019
Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment.— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019
In fact, Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019
Impeachment, which is a special form of indictment, does not even require probable cause that a crime (e.g., obstruction of justice) has been committed; it simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct.— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019
While impeachment should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances, the risk we face in an environment of extreme partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often but rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter misconduct.— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019
Our system of checks and balances relies on each branch’s jealously guarding its powers and upholding its duties under our Constitution. When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of liberty—crumbles.— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019
We’ve witnessed members of Congress from both parties shift their views 180 degrees—on the importance of character, on the principles of obstruction of justice—depending on whether they’re discussing Bill Clinton or Donald Trump.— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019
Few members of Congress even read Mueller’s report; their minds were made up based on partisan affiliation—and it showed, with representatives and senators from both parties issuing definitive statements on the 448-page report’s conclusions within just hours of its release.— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019
America’s institutions depend on officials to uphold both the rules and spirit of our constitutional system even when to do so is personally inconvenient or yields a politically unfavorable outcome. Our Constitution is brilliant and awesome; it deserves a government to match it.— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019
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
Amash made the remarks that said Trump "engaged in impeachable conduct." Now he faces a primary challenger in the upcoming primary election.
Michigan state Rep. Jim Lower made his intentions known Monday morning, announcing that instead of seeking a third term in the state legislature, he will run against Amash for their party's nomination for the 2020 election. Amash has served as the representative for Michigan's 3rd Congressional District since 2011.
Republicans and the far-white have decided to throw the lawmaker under the bus.
 |
| Trump and Republicans upset that Justin Amash criticized the way they handled the Mueller Report. |
Amash joins several of his Democratic colleagues in Congress in arguing the president is deserving of impeachment. Not among them is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who will ultimately need to sign off on the idea before impeachment proceedings begin. “I know it’s going to take courage on the part of all of our members to stick with a program that might not be as fast as they want,” Pelosi reportedly said on a conference call with House Democrats late last month. She added that she’s “not struggling with this decision” to hold off on impeaching President Trump. Pelosi said last week that “every day gives grounds for impeachment in terms of his obstruction of justice,” but her fundamental position on the issue has not changed.
No comments:
Post a Comment