Tags
American scholars, denial of evidence, hiding evidence, high crimes and misdemeanors, impeachment, Justin Amash, misdemeanor, Mueller, Obstruction, obstruction of investigation, obstruction of justice, prosecution, Public trust, statutory crime, underlying crime, US constitution
“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… They say obstruction of justice requires an underlying crime. 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. 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. (US Congressman Justin Amash @justinamash, May 20, 2019)
Republican US Congressman Amash doubles down on need to impeach Trump:
“Justin Amash @justinamash
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:
2:00 PM · May 20, 2019 · Twitter for iPhone
Justin Amash @justinamash
Replying to @justinamash
1. They say there were no underlying crimes.
Justin Amash @justinamash
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
2. They say obstruction of justice requires an underlying crime.
Justin Amash @justinamash
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
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
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
In fact, the president could not have known whether every single person Mueller investigated did or did not commit any crimes.
Justin Amash @justinamash
4. They imply “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” requires charges of a statutory crime or misdemeanor.
Justin Amash @justinamash
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.”
https://archive.li/https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1130533752508157954
Mining Awareness + 