At NRO, Andrew McCarthy’s article “What Is Impeachment For?” speaks to the act of impeachment as being ‘…a political process, not a legal one’ but then, bends the curve.

On the issue of what is impeachable conduct he notes…

“There is considerable debate among legal scholars about what kind of conduct impeachment should apply to. Some say that it is limited to abuse of presidential power. Others counter that it applies to anything that demonstrates an incumbent’s unfitness. I adhere to the latter position, but it is not clear-cut.” (bold, underline emphasis added)

Hmmm…‘ANYTHING that demonstrates unfitness’? 

Other than actual election-meddling criminality that affected its outcome, we fail to see how an astute legal-eagle like Andrew McCarthy could make such a preference.

We thought the election process that involved combined sentiment of a Nation was the proper method to determine an incumbent’s unfitness. Got old PRE-presidential dirt?

Tell us…then, let elections decide.

Usually, we bow to Andrew McCarthy’s wisdom…in this case, respectfully, he’s wrong.