Well, we didn't have Justin Amash going to bat for Trump on our bingo card, but the former congressman did just that, despite his disdain for the former president.
Amash knows that if they get away with the excuse that somehow Trump is uniquely deserving of the abuse of power, there's nothing to stop them from doing the same to any future president … or any of us for that matter.
I may not like Trump, but I love our Constitution, so I feel compelled to speak out.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) August 6, 2023
The latest indictment, which I encourage everyone to read, attempts to criminalize Trump’s routine misstatements of fact and law in connection with the 2020 election.
But this is precisely the…
Often, the best evidence that something stinks is when even your biggest detractors are willing to say so.
Democrats, left wing media, and Jack Smith have been lying about the illegality of team Trump's actions in the wake of the 2020 elections. It's not illegal to entertain or execute legal maneuvers to challenge election results.
Well said
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 7, 2023
Amash continued:
But this is precisely the sort of wrong that must be addressed politically under our Constitution, not criminally.
Our system can’t survive if political disputes are removed to the criminal realm. There’s no limiting principle to such an approach.
Often overlooked within the smoky confusion created by Democrat attempts to 'get Trump' is the fact that nothing actually happened. Campaign officials and lawyers pontificated about executing various legal remedies that some thought were valid and others didn't.
You remember all the 'what if' articles at the time, detailing endless debate from legal scholars about what could and couldn't be done. Only now do Democrats and Jack Smith pretend these things are set in stone.
What laws? He has a right to question unfair vote dumps at 3:00 am.
— Common Sense Lady (@Bluzforever) August 7, 2023
2016 was all about questioning whether our election was somehow stolen by Russians. Only in 2020 did it become traitorous to question election results.
The nefarious Trump plan to 'steal the election' was to take actions they believed were supported by our constitutional system, and it was our Constitution that would have determined whether the Trump team's actions were allowed or not, had they actually followed through.
Unprecedented or rare is not synonymous with illegal.
The man tried to overthrow our government.
— NavyJim (@james_spinello) August 6, 2023
Amash received plenty of criticism as well.
Schemes by lawyers to try to act within the system is not trying to 'overthrow our government', unless you want to count the entire Russian collusion debacle, the goal of which was to remove Trump from office. For that matter, throw this indictment in too. The ultimate goal of these indictments is to prevent Donald Trump from being elected again. Do we arrest Jack Smith, or do we let the system play out and trust the Consitution?
Amash wasn't done:
Remind me again which former presidents have been indicted for going to war without congressional approval, spying on Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment, abusing emergency declarations to bypass checks and balances, or ignoring legal advisers to pursue a clearly unlawful policy.
Should the DOJ have brought criminal proceedings against Obama for trying to subvert Congress with an executive order on immigration? Can we throw Joe Biden in prison for trying to forgive student loan debt by executive fiat? The Supreme Court ultimately ruled it was illegal, after all.
Or, just maybe, the constitutional system worked as it should and resolved these questions appropriately.
I did not expect this, thank you for speaking out.
— 🌿KJUNE (@kjune65) August 7, 2023
We don’t criminalize these actions, egregious as they are, because they are matters of political contention. We’re allowed to disagree about the workings of our constitutional system without fear of criminal reprisal.
Politicians are constantly misguided and just plain mistaken about a lot of things—often remarkably so. It endangers all Americans to begin treating politicians’ false beliefs regarding political or constitutional matters, even when they’re obviously wrong, as criminal offenses.
Regardless of whether you agree with Amash's characterization of Trump's actions, he's right that using the DOJ to criminalize political actions is a horrible precedent.
That’s the most fair statement I’ve seen on this platform. Thank you for your words.
— Jay Hemingway (@JayJ228) August 6, 2023
Amash received both praise and condemnation for his opinion, and from both sides of the isle.
He concluded:
We impeach people for violating the public trust—for political misconduct or serious incompetence. We reject them. We vote them out. We never again elect them.
We don’t imprison them.
The Constitution provides the remedies needed to deal with questions of legality and political behavior in contentious elections. The Supreme Court can rule about legal mechanisms employed by political parties. Congress can impeach and remove members, presidents, and justices who commit high crimes. Most importantly, voters can choose to reward or punish politicians.
It's the last group Democrats seem hell bent on denying the opportunity to vote for their preferred candidate again.
This is dumb. The Trump charges aren’t about criminalizing speech or disinformation but their use in broader conspiracies.
— Jeff Giesea (@jeffgiesea) August 6, 2023
Notice the 'crimes' Trump committed are always described in vague terms like 'broader conspiracies'.
Conspiracy to defraud the United States. Seriously? Was Al Gore conspiring to defraud the United States when his lawyers fought to overturn the results in Florida?
These people are too overcome with hate to comprehend limiting principles.
— Dennis the OG Spongeworthy (@spongeworthy2) August 6, 2023
Some will never recover from TDS. Whatever it takes. Whatever institutions have to be abused. Whatever norms violated. Nothing is too far to get Trump.
Ironic, isn't it?
As an aside: Even on Jack Smith’s own terms—even assuming the applicability of the cited statutes to a political dispute—the indictment falls woefully short. Showing that others repeatedly told Trump he was wrong is not sufficient to prove he sought to defraud the United States…
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) August 6, 2023
Amash drove the point home a bit further.
The framing of the entire 2020 election by Democrats and their media enablers has been summarily accepted as truth.
You don't get to just claim that Trump doesn't actually believe he won the 2020 election. On the contrary, he seems quite convinced of it. Many on his team believed the proposed maneuvers with electors were quite legal, and not without precedent. Even the term 'fake elector' is a political creation.
I have to say this was a surprise knowing how much you despise Trump and you brought up a point I haven't heard anywhere else and that is that this is a political dispute of which there are political remedies, but you don't criminalize it and put former Presidents in jail. Well…
— Jericho (@JerichoXVI) August 7, 2023
How about the Election of 1876? Congress received two sets of conflicting electoral votes from Oregon, South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana - one from the Democrats and one from the Republicans. In some cases, the GOP was fighting against Democrat intimidation through violence and murder of black citizens to stifle their vote.
Were those 'fake electors', or is that just the Democrat-friendly characterization of today's media? I think we all know.
During the same election, Democrats threatened to filibuster the electoral count to prevent Republican Hayes from winning. In the end Congress established a temporary commission to determine the outcome, resulting in the Compromise of 1877.
Well, I do like Trump. But I like your post. It was well thought out, and put to words.
— Silver Fox (@SilverFoxOO7) August 7, 2023
We've faced uncertain election results before. It's messy, and the system handled it. Framing this as an attempt to overthrow the government or defraud the United States is nothing more than naked partisan politics.
Amash with a grand slam right here. Jack Smith has overplayed his hand. And it's becoming painfully obvious. https://t.co/kn2YkNEsUM
— Dog guy (@Catsorange1) August 6, 2023
We assume this was supposed to be the icing on the indictment cake, but it seems to be the weakest yet.
This is not about what Trump thought, it’s what he did in cooking up a fake elector plot to overturn an election. If you say “that’s just politics,” then anyone can attempt a coup once they lose. Then we’ll have to chalk it up to political differences as we live under a dictator. https://t.co/dOGK4RAwsb
— Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) August 6, 2023
How quickly they forget 2016. But that attempt to undo an election was different for some reason.
The fact Amash even said this should tell you how bad this case is. https://t.co/b55L0n6bnT
— Real Political Data (@RealPData) August 6, 2023
There you go. An unlikely defense for Trump, by a Never Trumper, against a politically-charged DOJ. That says a lot.
***
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy’s conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member