1. They say there were no underlying crimes.
-
-
Show this thread
-
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.
Show this thread -
2. They say obstruction of justice requires an underlying crime.
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread -
In fact, the president could not have known whether every single person Mueller investigated did or did not commit any crimes.
Show this thread -
4. They imply “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” requires charges of a statutory crime or misdemeanor.
Show this thread -
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.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I appreciate his honesty- I had forgotten that members of the
@gop could be honest with constituentspic.twitter.com/JJ5TsmW6iZ
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.