Rep. McCarthy Calls Amash’s Impeachment Call “Disturbing”
FeaturedNational Politics

Rep. McCarthy Calls Amash’s Impeachment Call “Disturbing”


Michigan rep. Justin Amash (R) made headlines when he became the first Republican to join Democrats in calling for President Trump to be impeached.

Though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) has tried to quiet down the talks of President Trump being impeached, the idea has now gained more traction as rep. Amash continues to voice his disapproval of the president.

In response to rep. Amash’s call for impeachment, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R) was interviewed on “Sunday Morning Futures” over the weekend, and he said that Amash’s call for impeachment is “very disturbing.”

McCarthy continued by expressing that “this is exactly what you would expect from Justin. He never supported the president. And I think he’s just looking for attention.”

take our poll - story continues below

Will You Be Voting In Person November 3rd?

  • Will You Be Voting In Person November 3rd?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Floridian updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

McCarthy doubled down by saying that Amash is “not a criminal attorney. He’s never met Mueller. He’s never met Barr.” And, McCarthy questioned why he was “forward with this?”

Elaborating on why he believes that President Trump should be impeached, Amash took to twitter to provide four rebuttals to supporters of the president.

The first argument is that “there were no underlying crimes.”

To this, Amash responded that:

The second argument is that “obstruction of justice requires an underlying crime.”

To this, Amash argued that “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.”

Amash further explained that “if an underlying crime were required, then prosecutors could charge obstruction of justice only if it were unsuccessful in completely obstructing the investigation.”

The third argument is that people “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.”

In response, Amash detailed that:

Finally, Amash noted that people “imply ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ requires charges of statutory crime of misdemeanor.”

He responded that “’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.”

Daniel Molina

Daniel Molina was the Opinion Editor of his high school’s newspaper, and he was also Editor-in-Chief of Miami Dade College’s Urbana literary and arts magazine wherein he also won the 2013 FCSAA Best Fiction Story in the State of Florida Award. He’s currently pursuing his Bachelor’s in English Literature. Hobbies in his free time include reading, writing and watching films and basketball.