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:
-
-
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.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
An underlying crime is not required, but it does help when the intent of the accused is proven to not be based on covering up a crime. Defending yourself from being framed is not a corrupt intent. Are you a lawyer? Because you're missing the mens rea requirement of obstruction.
-
Obstruction is a crime. Period.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Even Mueller didn't think he had enough to pull the trigger on charging for obstruction of justice.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New 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.