Justin Amash (R-MI) tweeted a rationale for impeachment of President Trump.  We break down the entire Justin Amash tweet thread and discuss it within the context of liberty, the Constitution, transparency, accountability, bravery and rule of law.

We also discuss Pete Buttigieg, Poway High Varsity Baseball, Game of
Thrones, Lord of the Rings, Kawhi Leonard, SANDAG, San Diego Padres, Big Stone
Lodge, Wil Myers, Fernando Tatis Jr., Betsy DeVos, Darsh Patel, Marian
Kim-Phelps, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Mike Lee, Rand Paul and Thomas Massie.

Here is the full text of the Justin Amash tweet thread from Saturday, May 18, 2019:

Here are my principal conclusions:Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.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.In comparing Barr’s principal conclusions,
congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller’s report, it is clear
that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s
analysis and findings.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.Under our Constitution, the president “shall
be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery,
or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” While “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is
not defined, the context implies conduct that violates the public trust.Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report
reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of
behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment.In fact, Mueller’s report identifies multiple
examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and
undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be
indicted based on such evidence.Impeachment, which is a special form of
indictment, does not even require probable cause that a crime (e.g.,
obstruction of justice) has been committed; it simply requires a finding that
an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise
dishonorable conduct.While impeachment should be undertaken only in
extraordinary circumstances, the risk we face in an environment of extreme
partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often but
rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter misconduct.Our system of checks and balances relies on
each branch’s jealously guarding its powers and upholding its duties under our
Constitution. When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps
loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of
liberty—crumbles.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.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.America’s institutions depend on officials to