,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Note how the GOP keeps pushing a false framing that Mueller's impeachment referral hinged on a narrow, statutory definition of "crime." That's NOT TRUE. A president can be impeached for something that's not technically a crime.
1/
1/
And Barr keeps referring to the government's inability to prove obstruction "beyond a reasonable doubt." Again: NO. There IS no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in impeachment. Again: which is why Mueller insisted that the FACTS, not a binary conclusion, be reported.
2/
2/
Think of it this way: imagine Mueller had found Trump (a) was drunk every morning by 10 a.m., (b) spent a cabinet meeting watching porn on his phone, and (c) walked around the West Wing in a tutu.
Those aren't crimes.
But they're impeachable.
THAT'S why it's not "binary."
3/
Those aren't crimes.
But they're impeachable.
THAT'S why it's not "binary."
3/
So even if Barr was correct in saying that Trump didn't commit the "crime" of obstruction (he isn't), Mueller STILL makes a colorable case for impeachment. THAT'S why Mueller was upset at Barr's letter: concluding "no crime" is IRRELEVANT to Mueller's impeachment referral.
4/
4/
More: for the reasons given above, Mueller arguably presented an impeachable case for conspiracy/collusion, as well. Mueller was clear that he didn't find enough ADMISSIBLE evidence to convince a JURY beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT.
NONE of which apply at an impeachment hearing.
5/
NONE of which apply at an impeachment hearing.
5/
What's more, Barr's conclusion that there was no "prosecutable case" was based on the evidence Mueller collected -- which, again, was limited by legal constraints like admissibility, hearsay, privilege, etc. that don't apply in impeachment hearings.
6/
6/
