The best outome
Many commentators are ignoring the “first rule of holes”: When in one, stop digging. They can’t because, well, ratings.
Fair enough, but Hewitt is playing spinmeister when he says:
The president often acted in anger and/or haste, the redacted report revealed, as many an innocent man wrongly accused would act. But he was well served by those who let him cool down or change course.
Much of Trump’s anger and/or haste arose from his inability (etiology: narcissism) to understand that the Presidency is a public trust, not a private playground, that the Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, not the President’s personal legal counsel.
Trump’s narcissism makes him uniquely unsuited to the discharge of a public trust, but we didn’t need the Mueller Report to know that. The voters had to know it even in 2016, even if they chose to overlook it.
So I’m still unpersuaded that impeachment (even if successful) would serve the country well.
The best outcome for the country would be a compelling primary challenger to Trump who would go on to win the general election.
No, make that “The best outcome for the country would be wholesale abandonment of the two irredeemably corrupt major parties and the 2020 election of someone from neither.”
No, make that “There are no good outcomes.”