,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
If anyone is confused about @HouseJudiciary’s intentions, let there be no more doubt.
Today’s resolution, like our previous actions, states explicitly that our purpose is to consider impeaching President Trump—an action I support.
Let’s review the record:
Today’s resolution, like our previous actions, states explicitly that our purpose is to consider impeaching President Trump—an action I support.
Let’s review the record:
On March 4, 2019, we sought information from many sources related to ‘alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power by President Trump.’ This is the same behavior which formed the basis of the impeachments of Presidents Nixon and Clinton.
On May 8, 2019, we recommended that the House hold Attorney General Barr in contempt. As part of that recommendation, the Committee was clear that our work ‘includes whether to approve articles of impeachment with respect to the President.’
On June 11, 2019, the House approved H. Res. 430, authorizing this Committee to enforce its subpoenas in court. The Committee report stated explicitly that our work includes whether to approve articles of impeachment with respect to the President.
On July 26, 2019, we asked a federal court for access to grand jury information, and we told the court that it falls to this Committee to ‘exercise . . . a constitutional power of the utmost gravity—approval of articles of impeachment.’
On August 7, 2019, we filed suit to enforce our subpoena for Mr. McGahn. There again, we told the court that we require his testimony in order to help decide whether to recommend articles of impeachment.
Now, today, September 12, 2019, @HouseJudiciary are expanding our power to investigate, to collect and catalogue the evidence, and to move towards a final decision around articles of impeachment.
I believe that those articles are not only warrented, they are required.
I believe that those articles are not only warrented, they are required.
