Connect with us

News

This Republican Congressman Just Made a Powerful Case for Trump’s Impeachment — Showing Up Many Top Democrats in the Process

Published

on

Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan posted an incisive tirade against President Donald Trump and his administration on Saturday afternoon, becoming the first Republican lawmaker to call for impeaching the commander in chief as a result of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

And in the process, he displayed a more cogent, compelling and thoughtful grasp on the findings laid out in the Mueller report and the requirements for impeachment than most top Democrats have shown. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who called for impeachment shortly after reading the report, has been one of the most influential and outspoken Democrats on the topic.

And to be sure, Amash is not a typical Republican. He has been strongly critical of Trump in the past, and if anyone were to make a list of GOP lawmakers who’d be most likely to support impeaching Trump, Amash would certainly be at the top of the list. His decisive turn against the president isn’t a sign that the rest of his party will soon come to the same conclusion. Still, it was notable how forcefully and emphatically he made his case.

He began by announcing his forceful “principal conclusions” from the report, echoing the language Attorney General Bill Barr used to shape public opinion about Mueller’s findings:

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,” he said.

It was interesting, but effective, that Amash focused first on Barr’s deceptions. It was important because of how the Mueller report has been so grossly misrepresented by Republicans, the media, and even some Democrats — all led by Barr’s initial spin.

“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,” wrote Amash.

Impeachment, he said, is warranted when an official commits “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a phrase which he reads to imply “conduct that violates the public trust.” By this standard, the Mueller report shows Trump’s behavior was impeachable — despite Barr’s attempts to convince the public otherwise.

He noted, too, that he agrees with the hundreds of former federal prosecutors who have said that Trump’s actions outlined under the analysis of obstruction of justice in the report would have resulted in the indictment of any other person. And the standard of proof, he argued, is not even as high for impeachable offenses as it would be for a criminal showing. Congress only needs to conclude that the official carried out “careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct.”

In one of his most compelling and important points, Amash emphasized the dangers of not impeaching the president, something top Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler seem to have ignored:

He also included a mild critique of some Democrats calling for impeachment now, saying, “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.”

But the most scathing critique was his argument — which is practically undeniable — that on this matter, most lawmakers aren’t actually well informed.

“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,” he concluded. “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.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

There Was Another Sexual Misconduct Accusation About Brett Kavanaugh – The FBI Refused to Investigate

Published

on

NYT Reveals FBI Also Refused to Interview 25 Potential Witnesses in Previously Reported Allegation of Sexual Assault

The New York Times published a bombshell story Saturday night, reporting that a man had contacted the FBI during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh. He alleged, according to the Times, that Kavanaugh was at a drunken dorm party with his pants pulled down, and “friends pushed [Kavanaugh’s] penis into the hand of a female student.

The witness “notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate.”

The Times also took a deep dive into the public allegations made by Deborah Ramirez during the Kavanaugh hearings.

“She and some classmates had been drinking heavily when, she says, a freshman named Brett Kavanaugh pulled down his pants and thrust his penis at her, prompting her to swat it away and inadvertently touch it,” which had been previously reported.

“During his Senate testimony, Mr. Kavanaugh said that if the incident Ms. Ramirez described had occurred, it would have been ‘the talk of campus.’ Our reporting suggests that it was,” the Times reveals.

“At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez’s mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge. Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred, suggesting that it was discussed among students at the time.”

The Times reports the FBI did not investigate, despite the Kavanaugh hearings having been put on hold, supposedly to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct, including alleged sexual violence.

“Ms. Ramirez’s legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence. But the bureau — in its supplemental background investigation — interviewed none of them, though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the F.B.I. on their own,” the Times continues.

Two F.B.I. agents interviewed Ms. Ramirez, telling her that they found her “credible.” But the Republican-controlled Senate had imposed strict limits on the investigation. “‘We have to wait to get authorization to do anything else,’” Bill Pittard, one of Ms. Ramirez’s lawyers, recalled the agents saying. “It was almost a little apologetic.”

The Times chose to hide this reporting in its opinion pages as “news analysis.”

This bombshell reporting comes on the heels of another bombshell: Attorney General Bill Barr is giving a prestigious Dept. of Justice award, generally reserved for agents whose investigations uncover, say, attempted terrorism. This year the recipients will be those FBI agents who, as the Times reported separately, worked “to support the nomination” of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh was confirmed by a 50-48 vote in the Senate.

This is a breaking news and developing story. Details may change. This story will be updated, and NCRM will likely publish follow-up stories on this news. Stay tuned and refresh for updates.

Continue Reading

News

DOJ Obstructs House Impeachment Inquiry – Asks Federal Court to Block Release of Mueller Grand Jury Files: Report

Published

on

In a stunning move iAttorney General Bill Barr’s Dept of Justice late Friday afternoon filed a 40-page brief with a federal court, declaring the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment inquiry is not an impeachment inquiry, in an attempt to block release of files related to the Mueller probe.

It appears to be an unprecedented act, in which the top law enforcement agency is attempting to block Congress from carrying out its constitutional duties.

The DOJ is attempting to block the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s grand jury files, according to Politico. House Democrats have frequently said they cannot make an impeachment decision without the underlying materials from Mueller’s exhaustive investigation.

Politico’s Kyle Cheney and Andrew Desiderio broke the story, heralding the developments via Twitter:

UPDATE:

 

Developing…

This is a breaking news and developing story. Details may change. This story will be updated, and NCRM will likely publish follow-up stories on this news. Stay tuned and refresh for updates.

Continue Reading

News

Lawyers Say It’s ‘Clear’ Grand Jury Has Not Indicted McCabe and Are Asking End to Prosecution

Published

on

Attorneys for former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe are urging federal prosecutors to drop the case against him, saying it is “clear” the grand jury refused to indict him. McCabe has been a target of President Donald Trump and some believe the attempt to prosecute him is political, or an effort to go after the president’s political enemies.

Noting that both The New York Times and the Washington Post “published stories suggesting that the grand jury may have declined to vote in favor of charges,” McCabe’s attorney writes “the only fair and just result is for you to accept the grand jury’s decision and end these proceedings.”

They also warn that if the grand jury declined to indict, “the justice manual compels you not to resubmit the case to the same or a different grand jury.”

The Washington Post adds that McCabe’s legal team “has asked federal prosecutors in D.C. whether a grand jury had rejected their bid to indict the FBI’s former acting director on charges of lying to investigators, pointing to media inquiries and news accounts detailing a series of unusual events in the case.”

The letter was posted to Twitter by Politico national security correspondent Natasha Bertrand, who is also an MSNBC contributor.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2019 AlterNet Media.