Obstruction Confusions

[endicom]

National Review
Andrew McCarthy
Feb. 21, 2018

A response to Gabriel Schoenfeld

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is mutual. But his work has become a one-note #NeverTrump tune since spring 2016, when it became inevitable that Donald Trump would be the Republican presidential nominee.

Most of us who opposed that outcome have made an uneasy peace with it. After all, to wallow about a person of Trump’s character flaws being president would not change the realities that he is president, and that how the country is governed matters more than who is doing the governing. But, alas, Gabe is forever rabid, such that if the president helped an elderly woman cross the street, we would find him seething that Trump had caused the dangerous traffic conditions — and probably just wanted to steal her purse.

More... https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/obstruction-confusions/

[Concerned]

McCarthy really took "the long way around the barn" IMO to get to the point that the remedy against the President's (potential) transgressions is impeachment (didn't we learn that during the Clinton impeachment hearings?).  From McCarthy's article (the final two sentences):

If Congress concluded that a president committed acts that interfered with FBI investigations, and that were corruptly motivated even if technically within the president’s lawful authority, Congress could impeach the president. Were that to happen, it would not matter that the acts were not indictable obstruction crimes under the federal penal code.