Thread by @SethAbramson

One attorney to another, I would say to @Comey that the rule of law, whether statutory or constitutional, is not something we put up to a vote. If Trump committed sufficient criminal or other offenses for constitutional norms to say he should be impeached, he should be impeached.

@Comey 2/ In other words, I would say to @Comey that no law enforcement officer or officer of the court should *ever* say that s/he wants someone to be voted out rather than impeached. The *only* appropriate standard is what the rule of law demands. Comey knows better than what he said.

@Comey 3/ The rule of law doesn't let us take a vote to determine if 33% of Americans would be annoyed if Obstruction of Justice continues to be, as it has always been, an impeachable offense. When you placate those who hate our rule of law, you're not acting as an officer of the court.

@Comey 4/ @Comey would do better to spend his time *educating* Americans on what our rule of law of demands regardless of the political party of the defendant, rather than implicitly making excuses for people who hate our rule of law and would falsely allege a coup if it were exercised.

@Comey 5/ I also feel—perhaps due to an allegiance to my role as an officer of the court—that Americans are more bound to our rule of law than the cynicism exhibited by @Comey would suggest. I agree 33% of us would be angry at an impeachment; that doesn't mean 33% would call it a coup.

@Comey 6/ I've met many lawmen in my life. There's a sort of lawman who says stupid but noble-sounding things that are ill-considered because they're fundamentally reflexively vain, rather than professional. What @Comey said about a coup was vain pap; it wasn't what a lawyer should say.

@Comey 7/ I say all this as someone who admires @Comey and believes in his integrity. I think it's hard to suddenly become any sort of public figure when one hasn't planned for it—but he needs to remember his training as an officer of the court. What the law demands is what must happen.

@Comey 8/ Sometimes Trump supporters will publicly muse that there's no way I'll accept Mueller's findings if they disagree in any particular with the evidence-based theory of the case I've presented on this feed. These folks really don't understand how lawyers think. I value *process*.

@Comey 9/ I will always reserve the right to publicly disagree with someone's conclusions of law if I do not consider them supported by evidence. But *another* thing I will always do is say that we must accept the results of a *lawfully* executed process, like the Mueller investigation.

@Comey 10/ Somewhere along the way to becoming a public figure, @Comey decided that publicly rooting for impeachment is ignoble. That's fine—he may well be right. But even more ignoble is superciliously catering to those of us who would *ever* confuse our rule of law with a "coup." /end