TDS spreading to GOP

Justin Amash Becomes First GOP Lawmaker to Say Trump Should Be Impeached

"Here are my principal conclusions:

  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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

And, of course…

"“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,” Trump tweeted.

“If he actually read the biased Mueller Report, ‘composed’ by 18 Angry Dems who hated Trump,…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!"

He’s certainly proved that he actually read the report.

So when does impeachment begin?

I know you are kidding but if they can’t actually impeach him there’s no point. It would only embolden the golden goose and his loyal sheep.

They would need a lot more than just one GOPer.

It won’t. And as the congressman articulated, there’s danger in that inaction.

Impeachment isn’t a ruling. It’s a process of exploration and rendering judgment after. Republicans aren’t even willing to consider the process, opting instead to ride whatever snake is slithering in their direction, no matter the evidence. It’s abrogation of congressional duty. He understands that.

I know you are kidding but if they can’t actually impeach him there’s no point. It would only embolden the golden goose and his loyal sheep.

They would need a lot more than just one GOPer.

I’m not kidding.

It won’t. And as the congressman articulated, there’s danger in that inaction.

Impeachment isn’t a ruling. It’s a process of exploration and rendering judgment after. Republicans aren’t even willing to consider the process, opting instead to ride whatever snake is slithering in their direction, no matter the evidence. It’s abrogation of congressional duty. He understands that.

I know what impeachment is.

I know you know what impeachment is.

You know I know you know what impeachment is.

I know you know what impeachment is.

You know I know you know what impeachment is.

But the question is when. It is underway and it is by self himself.

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.
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.

What specific actions? Give us 1 example of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction.

It’s really easy. “On this date, Trump did such and such, and that meets the threshold for impeachment. And on this date, Trump did this and that, which satisfies all the elements of obstruction.”

I know you know what impeachment is.

You know I know you know what impeachment is.

Glad we cleared that up :slight_smile:

What specific actions? Give us 1 example of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction.

I love how everyone is now an expert in obstruction and all its “elements.” :slight_smile:

**So when does impeachment begin? **

There is no point to starting a process that the Senate won’t pass. Republicans won’t budge because they are only concerned with their next election and Democrats won’t budge because they are only concerned with their next election.

That doesn’t mean there are no grounds for impeachment however.

There is no point to starting a process that the Senate won’t pass.

Sure there is. Of course there is.

Just because we know that the ruling party will turn a blind eye to impeachable behavior by a President doesn’t mean that Congress should absolve itself of the responsibility to adjudicate the matter, out in the open.

The Congressman is correct. If we ignore the evidence because his party has and predictably will, there is no longer even a pretense of coequal branches of government, Congressional oversight, or Presidential accountability.

That’s a pretty damn good reason, in my opinion.

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.
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.

What specific actions? Give us 1 example of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction.

It’s really easy. “On this date, Trump did such and such, and that meets the threshold for impeachment. And on this date, Trump did this and that, which satisfies all the elements of obstruction.”

Here is the article that gives the evidence how each of the three parts are met.

obstruction.png

**So when does impeachment begin? **

There is no point to starting a process that the Senate won’t pass. Republicans won’t budge because they are only concerned with their next election and Democrats won’t budge because they are only concerned with their next election.

That doesn’t mean there are no grounds for impeachment however.

Well, if it can proven that Trump committed a crime then the house has a DUTY to impeach and the senate to convict.

If they don’t do it either there isn’t really enough of a smoking gun or they have failed in their duties and they (members of Congress) need to be voted out.

That’s how it works in our country.

Well, if it can proven that Trump committed a crime then the house has a DUTY to impeach and the senate to convict.

If they don’t do it either there isn’t really enough of a smoking gun or they have failed in their duties and they (members of Congress) need to be voted out.

That’s how it works in our country.

I disagree, if you mean “proven” in the sense of the criminal justice system. If you research the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” it’s typically given a lower bar. And has more to do with failing to live up to the standards of the oath of office than specifically violating criminal law. It’s distinctly different than the bar of being definitively proven “beyond a reasonable” doubt for a felony.

Also Trump can’t have it both ways. We were told that he wouldn’t be charged with a felony because the the Justice Dept. lawyers go by the doctrine that you can’t charge a sitting President, and it’s up to Congress to remove a President. And Mueller reportedly took this to heart and wouldn’t have laid out a specific felony charge against Trump even if there was evidence. But if that’s the case you can’t turn around and tell Congress, “Oh you can’t impeach because the Justice Dept. didn’t charge.” Can’t have it both ways. Or else there’s no way to remove a President.

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. That’s why Congress, not the courts, have the power - Congress is the political body. If half of the House and 2/3 of the Senate think that the President isn’t doing his job to the standards they feel he should, then they can impeach him.

**So when does impeachment begin? **

There is no point to starting a process that the Senate won’t pass. Republicans won’t budge because they are only concerned with their next election and Democrats won’t budge because they are only concerned with their next election.

That doesn’t mean there are no grounds for impeachment however.

Well, if it can proven that Trump committed a crime then the house has a DUTY to impeach and the senate to convict.

If they don’t do it either there isn’t really enough of a smoking gun or they have failed in their duties and they (members of Congress) need to be voted out.

That’s how it works in our country.

Yeah but you know that isnt how it will work out.

Dems bring impeachment. Congress shoots it down and all Trumpers say: “see? Completely exonerated!!!”

What they don’t say is: “Congress is wrong, they should have removed him from office”.

Well, if it can proven that Trump committed a crime then the house has a DUTY to impeach and the senate to convict.

If they don’t do it either there isn’t really enough of a smoking gun or they have failed in their duties and they (members of Congress) need to be voted out.

That’s how it works in our country.

I disagree, if you mean “proven” in the sense of the criminal justice system. If you research the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” it’s typically given a lower bar. And has more to do with failing to live up to the standards of the oath of office than specifically violating criminal law. It’s distinctly different than the bar of being definitively proven “beyond a reasonable” doubt for a felony.

Also Trump can’t have it both ways. We were told that he wouldn’t be charged with a felony because the the Justice Dept. lawyers go by the doctrine that you can’t charge a sitting President, and it’s up to Congress to remove a President. And Mueller reportedly took this to heart and wouldn’t have laid out a specific felony charge against Trump even if there was evidence. But if that’s the case you can’t turn around and tell Congress, “Oh you can’t impeach because the Justice Dept. didn’t charge.” Can’t have it both ways. Or else there’s no way to remove a President.

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. That’s why Congress, not the courts, have the power - Congress is the political body. If half of the House and 2/3 of the Senate think that the President isn’t doing his job to the standards they feel he should, then they can impeach him.

Yeah, that too.

My point is that if he actually committed crimes it changes it (IMHO) to a matter of duty. If it’s simply, “we don’t like the way Trump is doing things” then they obviously *may *impeach him, but not shall impeach him

Yeah, that too.

My point is that if he actually committed crimes it changes it (IMHO) to a matter of duty. If it’s simply, “we don’t like the way Trump is doing things” then they obviously *may *impeach him, but not shall impeach him

Yeah, I guess we agree. I just don’t like the world “proven”. Because the only way to prove a crime is to take it all the way through conviction, either by jury or judge. I don’t think we want Mueller or Barr’s opinion on what its “provable” to be the bar. Because then we’re effectively giving them the power to remove the President. And that power is not theirs. It’s up to Congress to judge if it’s “proven.” That’s why I think it’d be OK for Congress to impeach even if Mueller/Barr didn’t explicitly state that what Trump did constituted a crime to the standards of a Federal prosecutor.