Obstruction of Justice, Trump-FBI and #TwitterLockOut

So, how this will work is I’ll attempt to lead you to the different view points, and the messaging between the two camps. I’ll also attempt to introduce you to who’s on what side and where they stand. Follow the links to get the full details.

There are two individuals that seem to be writing in an impartial manner that you can trust to be less partisan in what they lay out. One of these is Andrew McCarthy McCarthy is one of the go-to guys for people that back Trump because, for the moment, McCarthy states that he believes that there’s no way that Trump is impeached. His qualifications to make such a judgement? He’s a “Bestselling author. Contributing Editor at National Review & Fellow at NR Inst. Former Chief Asst. U.S. Attorney” His posts are very well laid out and can be accessible by most laymen. This doesn’t mean that everyone agrees with him. In his latest post, he is responding to a critic and lays out a very important point:

Obstruction Confusions – Andrew McCarthy

I believe it is “cockamamie” and “patently absurd” to claim that a president could be guilty of a penal obstruction offense based on exercises of his power that are lawful even if unsavory. Because the appropriate response to executive abuse of power is impeachment, not indictment, Gabe’s angst over whether such abusive actions could be indictable in court is overwrought.

The Framers armed the president with the power to pardon federal offenses (his own included), to dismiss subordinate executive officers (prosecutors included), and to shut down executive investigations (those implicating him included). It therefore seems to me ridiculous to contend that, when it came to reining in a rogue president, they envisioned criminal indictments based on an abstruse theory that lawful actions could nevertheless amount to obstruction felonies. What they had in mind was impeachment.

Most of those wanting Trump (and Pence) out of office seem to spend a lot of time discussing whether Trump violated the law, but the things that they are talking about are lawful for the President to do. There’s no way (absent of some gross misconduct) that the Republican House and Republican Senate are going to commit political suicide by impeaching Trump over what has come out so far. So McCarthy tells us that nothing he has seen or heard mentioned would rise to this.

The anti-Trump side has their own champions. One of the most articulate individuals is Seth Abramson. From his Twitter page:

Attorney. Professor @UofNH (journalism, legal advocacy). Analysis @CNN, @BBC, @CBS, @Bloomberg, @VanityFair, others. More: http://sethabramson.net/bio . Views mine.

He has been referenced in multiple main stream media outlets, and as many Twitter threads like this one 13 Person Indictment means more than you think. From this, it looks like the line of thought is changing from Trump-Russia being the major issue to Trump-FBI. This is an interesting development:

Here’s his conclusion:

CONCLUSION/ We should feel free to see this week's indictments as critical. We should feel equally free to see them as—in a certain view—beside the point of two key questions: (1) how did Trump conspire to steal an election; (2) how did Trump betray the nation he now leads. {end}

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) February 21, 2018

And what’s up with Q today?

Q has been talking for some days about the link between Twitter (@Jack) and the media and people on the left. He hinted that @Jack is no longer being protected, and comments about the #TwitterLockOut that happened last night where many conservatives were locked out or lost followers. The followers have been restored, but Q wants us to think that this part of everything that’s going on, and that the time table has been moved up.