Is the House impeachment case so weak that Pelosi does not even want a trial?

Nick Arama:
Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal is making a good point about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sitting on the articles of impeachment.

Who says that Pelosi even wants it to go to trial?

Pelosi knows that President Donald Trump is going to be exonerated in a trial because it wouldn’t be controlled by Democrats trying to game the system and they will actually expose the fact that there isn’t evidence of impeachable offenses. Not having a trial also avoids exploring the contacts between the whistleblower and House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff and/or his staff or to look into any possible Biden corruption, although Sen. Lindsey Graham has promised a separated proceeding into both anyway.

Mrs. Pelosi has understood from the start that the inevitable outcome was acquittal. There won’t be 20 Republican votes to remove Mr. Trump from office. So why hasten the president’s vindication? If the goal of this exercise all along was to damage Mr. Trump’s prospects for re-election, why wouldn’t Democrats want to hold an unconsummated impeachment over his head for as long as politically possible?

Think of it as “rolling” impeachment. Every day the Senate doesn’t hold a trial, Mrs. Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are free to argue that the process is rigged. They are already claiming that the Senate’s Republican “jurors” have abandoned impartiality, are actively working with Mr. Trump to cover up his crimes, and are afraid to hold a trial.
Indeed, we mentioned this as her possible strategy all along in a prior article. That way she can claim Trump was impeached and not cleared because Republicans are “unfair.”

It allows her to cater to her base and say they got Trump impeached.

Of course there are a few holes in this idea as she’s now finding out. The delay doesn’t necessarily count against the Republicans, even with friendly media willing to paint them as the “unfair” ones.

The general public saw Democrats pitching Trump as an immediate threat who needed to be removed and now suddenly doesn’t. There was such an immediate need, the Democrats couldn’t wait to call some of the witnesses. Except now they want the Senate to call those witnesses they couldn’t be bothered to wait for before or it wouldn’t be “fair.” On top of that, they denied Republicans the ability to call witnesses and or present exculpatory evidence in the House. Now they’re denying Trump a fair trial in the Senate by their actions.

Even Pelosi’s own witness, Harvard Law professor, Noah Feldman, is saying that sitting on it for more than a short time is constitutionally problematic.
...
The Republicans could still call a trial without her and this would lead to Trump exoneration even if Democrats did not participate.  The Republicans could all the witnesses they were denied in the House proceeding.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains

James Robbins: ... Bin Laden suggests that President Bush should allow Zarqawi’s body to be returned to his family in Jordan, but this is a matter that is up to the Jordanian government, which so far has not shown much interest in facilitating a homecoming. Bin Laden mocks King Abdullah II, calling him a Coalition minion, and asking “w hat scares you about Abu Musab after he’s dead? You know that his funeral, if allowed to happen, would be a huge funeral showing the extent of sympathy with the mujahedin.” A large crowd would definitely turn out, though most people would be on hand to demonstrate their anger and disgust. Last November’s hotel bombings in Amman , masterminded by Zarqawi, are still fresh in people’s memory, and mentioning them to Jordanians has the same visceral impact as memory of the 9/11 attacks does here. Jordan has adopted a zero-tolerance policy towards those who choose to mourn the country’s least favorite son, and four opposition members of parliament who paid con
Read more