After calling for Trump's impeachment, Justin Amash (R-MI) lays out the case for obstruction.

[pnwmom]

And explains why those arguing that Trump's situation lacks the required underlying crime are wrong.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1130533752508157954.html

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:

1. They say there were no underlying crimes.
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.

2. 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.

SNIP

[Tiggeroshii]

1. Guys he is a republican who will be receiving a lot of death threats for this

Not sure how, but he needs support.

[elleng]

2. Yes, he does need support,

like him or not.

[unblock]

3. the underlying crime thing is complete malarkey, especially after several convictions.

donald fraud's claim is even more specific, that obstruction isn't obstruction unless *he* committed an underlying crime.

but that's complete nonsense, he committed obstruction if he impeded an investigation into flynn's crimes or the russians' crimes or cohen's crimes anyone else's crimes, it doesn't have to be *his* crimes.

[mr_lebowski]

5. Precisely, and everything laid out in Item 2 in the article is also quite accurate (nt)

[msongs]

4. doing the job the dems should be doing. nt