Lt. Rob Polans ret.

The important part is in the second and third paragraphs, John Dean? Geez.
Did Nancy Pelosi Just Blow The Impeachment?
By David Harsanyi -Jan 10, 2020

America is the midst of an imaginary impeachment standoff between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “Both have drawn firm lines in the sand. Someone’s got to give,” one reporter recently declared.

There is, of course, nothing to “give.” Pelosi has no standing to dictate the terms of a Senate trial; no constitutional right or political leverage. Why she has put herself in a position that will ultimately end, one way or another, with her surrendering to McConnell is perplexing.

A new piece in Time magazine does shed some light on the thought process behind Pelosi’s decision to refuse to hand over articles of impeachment to a Senate whose majority doesn’t want them. One of the most interesting nuggets in the piece isn’t that Pelosi — portrayed as courageous risk-taker — had gotten the bright idea from CNN; it’s that she specifically got it from noted felon John Dean, Nixon’s former White House lawyer. Now, Dean is often portrayed as a patriotic, whistleblowing impeachment expert — which is true insofar as he planned the Watergate coverup, and then informed on everyone whom he conspired with after they were caught. His real expertise is cashing in on criminality for the past 50 years.

Surely Pelosi, blessed with preternatural political instincts, wouldn’t rely on Dean’s advice? Surely Pelosi wasn’t browbeaten into doing this by podcast bros and talking heads on America’s least popular major cable news network?

Because wh**ever you make of the case against Donald Trump, it’s getting increasingly difficult to argue that this amateurish, constantly shifting effort by the House has been effective. After two dramatic emergency impeachment hearings, a pretend standoff and massive cooperative coverage from the media, poll numbers haven’t budged. They may even have ticked back toward Trump.

Yet, to hear Time tell it, Pelosi has micromanaged every step of this process, from signing off on every committee report and press release — “aides say she caught typos in the Intelligence Committee’s final report before it went out” — to picking furniture that would make Adam Schiff and the more diminutive Jerry Nadler look like equals.

My working theory is this: Pelosi realized that impeachment was a mistake. She didn’t want the president to be able tell v**ers that he had been exonerated by Senate. The only way to mitigate the damage was to undertake a ham-fisted effort to attack the Senate trial and dampen, or perhaps circumvent, that inevitable moment.

In the process, however, Pelosi destroyed the Democrats’ justification for rushing impeachment in the first place. Nadler and Schiff both argued that Trump’s tenure in office constituted a national emergency, and that the only way to save the republic from another s****n e******n was to move quickly.

McConnell, on the other hand, had to take only a short break from confirming judges to inform the House that the Senate would treat the impeachment of Donald Trump the same way it treated the impeachment of Bill Clinton — with a rules package that passed 100-0 in 1998. Under the Clinton precedent, the Senate would allow both the House impeachment managers and Trump’s lawyers to make their case, with questions from the Senate to follow.

Pelosi’s defenders are running out of arguments. Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin now says that acting on the Clinton precedent means that moderate Republican senators such as Susan Collins “will face the real possibility that conclusive evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing will come to light after a sham trial. That would make for a disastrous, humiliating legacy.”



The gaping hole in this argument, and the reason Democrats are losing the debate, is that they’ve already claimed to have conclusive evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing. They claimed they had proof of bribery, but they didn’t include it in the impeachment articles. They claimed to have proof in the Mueller Report that Trump obstructed justice, yet it’s not in the article of impeachments either. Rubin herself has alleged, dozens of times, that we already have definitive proof Trump has committed an impeachable offense.

In t***h, if the House had made a persuasive case, there would be public pressure on Republicans to act in a different manner. That the House did not is the only reason Pelosi embraced John Dean’s silly idea — which has drastically backfired.

Share this:

Liberty Tree

She knows there is no case for impeachment and has been desperately hoping something new would come out. That is why Democrats want to call witnesses they could have called before. They are still fishing.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

The impeachment has been done. It is now history..

What the squabble is about is removal from office..

Which Moscow Mitch will never let happen..

Liberty Tree

America is catching on to this farce by Pelosi and company. A totally partisan action based on h**e and not facts.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

HA HA< , AND the refusal to have anything like an honest trial in the senate is something you love and cling to McConnell is the 2nd most d********g travesty found in the trump cartel..

Have to go back to Joe McCarthy to find a rival..

Over 50% of Americans think trump should be removed from office but he will not be.. The crime filled orange cult will not allow justice to succeed..

Lonewolf

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

For example. They never subpoenaed Bolton. Why?

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Why didn't the dem's subpoena the new witnesses they now want to call in a Senate trial? They never subpoenaed Bolton. Why?

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

that is the tried and true strategy to make the court time line so long that the focus of the impeachment is gone. that is the stuff trump himself used time and again to escape court case brought by the companies and individuals which he defrauded.

Now, with the impeachment done, the trial should bring witness who were not yet allowed to testify, which McConnell has said he will not do.. so no chance of removal from office. But the impeachment is over and done.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

"the focus of the impeachment" That's the key, isn't it!? Pure politics and is demonstrated by the partisan way it was undertaken. At least you admit it. All an effort to win in 202 by the dems. It's not about his "crimes" at all.

Glad you have admitted to that. Pelosi et al should as well. Of course Pelosi is by her very actions and now her "impeachment for life?" LOLOL! The left is Sooooooo t***sparent!!

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

As always, you misconstrue.. the point was that the Dems are accepting the constitutionally required duty to impeach a bad president. the republicans refuse to do so. they will not remove trump no matter what the blocked witnesses would say.. so proceeding without these witnesses was the proper thing to do.

the evidence was sufficient to get it done and no amount of additional testimony would have the republicans remove the evil doer..

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

The evidence was zero of any thing. LOL! Nope, you said it, the left bypassed any subpoena of those witnesses because the efforts to get them enforced would take time and that would take public attention off of the impeachment. Y'all want attention on it for political purposes, pure and simple. The dem's would actually have to get back to actual work governing/law making/etc.

Don't try to undo the simple t***h you spouted in your previous comment.

As for constitutionality, the founding fathers and even folks like Nadler, Schummer and Pelosi have stated in the past that impeachment must no be partisan and this one most certainly is. Y'all are violating your own words/beliefs. In other words, y'all are being hypocritical in the extreme. Either their previous statements were lies or their current stance is a lie! Which is it???? I guess it depends upoon which one works politically, right??

Exactly!!!!!!!!

Democrats were crying for impeachment prior to Trump even getting into office. What a bunch of fools y'all are!!!!

EmilyD

What's the big deal about impeachment, anyway? It's just an accusation. Anyone can accuse anyone else of all kinds of things - doesn't mean they are true. Bill Clinton was "impeached" for lying under oath, and he remained President. (And after he left office, he made speeches all over the world and was paid big bucks for them.) Andrew Jackson was also "impeached" but remained in office. Nixon quit before he could even be accused of anything. People think the word "impeach" is an awful, horrible thing. The word that would be mean a hell of a lot more than "impeachment" would be "conviction."

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Very true, but we have a very ignorant populous, thanks to l*****ts take over of education in the states. Our reactionary alarmists thing impeachment is guilt.

We need to educate them.

EmilyD

I tell people to use the word "accuse" in place of "impeach" and then think about what they are hearing. Maxine Waters: "Accuse 45, Accuse 45, Accuse 45" just doesn't have the same ring to it