Rep. Mark Amodei, R-Nev., issued a lengthy statement on Wednesday explaining why he voted against both articles of impeachment.
On the first article, he said the question is whether President Trump’s conduct in the Ukraine phone call amounts fro high crimes and misdemeanors. Amodei said there is not “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” in the reports issued by the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees.
“There is testimonial evidence by civil service individuals indicating their speculation on the motives behind the above-cited presidential statements,” Amodei said. “No corroborative evidence was presented for that testimony except for personal opinions.”
He defended Trump’s actions by pointing out that, after the phone call, the Ukrainian aid was released.
“I can’t identify where any proof-standard of a crime being committed by the President has been achieved regarding the alleged quid pro quo/bribery and corruption scenario,” he said adding that he will vote against the impeachment article.
On the issue of obstruction of justice, Amodei took a different tack, pointing to a long list of Obama administration officials who refused to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. He especially cited Obama’s refusal to respond to a list of questions about the attack in Benghazi. The White House counsel at that time responded that, if Obama were to answer those questions, “his response would suggest that Congress has the unilateral power to demand answers from the President about his official acts.”
He said he didn’t think Obama should have been impeached for that, “and I don’t think President Trump should be impeached for Article Two now.”
“I will vote nay,” he concluded before the vote.
-->Rep. Mark Amodei, R-Nev., issued a lengthy statement on Wednesday explaining why he voted against both articles of impeachment.
On the first article, he said the question is whether President Trump’s conduct in the Ukraine phone call amounts fro high crimes and misdemeanors. Amodei said there is not “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” in the reports issued by the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees.
“There is testimonial evidence by civil service individuals indicating their speculation on the motives behind the above-cited presidential statements,” Amodei said. “No corroborative evidence was presented for that testimony except for personal opinions.”
He defended Trump’s actions by pointing out that, after the phone call, the Ukrainian aid was released.
“I can’t identify where any proof-standard of a crime being committed by the President has been achieved regarding the alleged quid pro quo/bribery and corruption scenario,” he said adding that he will vote against the impeachment article.
On the issue of obstruction of justice, Amodei took a different tack, pointing to a long list of Obama administration officials who refused to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. He especially cited Obama’s refusal to respond to a list of questions about the attack in Benghazi. The White House counsel at that time responded that, if Obama were to answer those questions, “his response would suggest that Congress has the unilateral power to demand answers from the President about his official acts.”
He said he didn’t think Obama should have been impeached for that, “and I don’t think President Trump should be impeached for Article Two now.”
“I will vote nay,” he concluded before the vote.
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment