Impressive

One constant of the Bush Years was the unfailingly poor ability of Bill Kristol to predict future events.  An avowed and consistent Never Trumper, Kristol has since come around to evidence-based thinking.

Megan McCardle has now taken on the mantle of World's Worst Pundit. Her argument - if you want to dignify it with the label - is that Democrats are the ones really in jeopardy because of Mueller's probe.

Yup.

Democrats.

McCardle, as is her practice, twists every available fact into a substantial enough pretzel to fit her preconceptions.  Queen of the Hot Takes, she has decided that if everything we know to be true wasn't true, that would really mean what it means.  She "argues" that the Clinton Impeachment was kinda sketchy (true) and therefore the Trump Impeachment would be kinda sketchy (false equivalency).  Her assertion is that Mueller might not have enough evidence to warrant impeachment.

Let's see what we ALREADY KNOW.  Trump directed his lawyer to engage in campaign finance violations in terms of his hush money to various mistresses.  He then orchestrated a cover-up of those violations.  We know that he has charged Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Rick Gates, Konstantin Kilminik, George Papadopolous and Michael Flynn.  Gates, Cohen and Flynn have been singing like canaries.  We have reason to believe he's circling in on evidence of physical meetings between Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi and others with Julian Assange, the cutout used by Russia to influence the election.

In McCardle's mind, this is terrible news for Democrats.