"At the time this struck me as a bit hypothetical at the time but the age of Trump inures one to all paradoxes.
To openly talk of the firing a prosecutor who is investigating you, to investigate the possibility of using a presidential pardon to pardon one's self,
to write strongly intimidating tweets whose stated purpose is to get a particular result, these all have that paradoxical strange loopy feel
and it seems difficult to make an argument that obstruction of justice is not going on."
In any political system you reach a level at which the power investigates itself. In the UK they "launch an inquiry", appoint a Lord or a Dame to run it, and trust that he/she will know by instinct how much truth can be exposed, and what needs to be swept under the carpet in order to defend the stability of the institutions, reputation of their peers (small p) and "public trust". That's how they dealt with child abuse, that's how they dealt with the Grenfell Tower fire, that's how they dealt with the Iraq War.
UK style public
inquiries seem definitely the way to go as, there is at least a fig leaf of judicial independence and objectivity and mostly published
(and if evidence is withheld a la
Dominic Grieve in the Chilcot inquiry at least you see who is doing the withholding).
Grenfell and the Iraq/Chilcot inquiries could only get retired judges and civil servants but you just can't get the staff these days!
By contrast, if only for value for money for tax dollars, these ridiculously partisan US investigations seem pointless.
For instance, I read now that Deutsche bank has been subpoenaed
to release tax info by congress but also sued by Trump to not release the info.
Which court has precedence? Would it save everyone's time and effort if this was known in advance?
Can I try the same trick with HMRC if the police want to investigate me?