The wheels are flying off the Democrats’ impeachment train and it seems headed for derailment.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced just before the Democratic debate on Tuesday that she would not be scheduling a full House vote to authorize a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. Was she hoping to bury this bombshell with debate headlines?
The Democrats were supposed to have more than half the country behind their campaign to impeach the president and remove him from office, so why is she shying away from a full House vote?
Pelosi knows that despite the wall-to-wall media mangling of the president, voters in swing states are still not supportive of impeachment and are questioning the party’s legislative priorities.
Democrats have had little appetite for solving the day-to-day problems dogging Americans. They ran on fixing healthcare in the midterms but have spent most of their time since winning the majority targeting the president for criminal indictment.
Pelosi is reluctant to expose her representatives in red states to the wrath that would ensue from a recorded impeachment vote. She now hopes Democrats can squeak by without voter scrutiny, continuing their abusive, unjust inquiry while saving her majority.
The so-called formal impeachment inquiry was launched because Trump was asking for Ukraine help in probing their candidate for president, Joe Biden and his son Hunter who were negotiating questionable deals in the country. Democrats insist that Trump used military aid of $400,000 as a quid pro quo to push the probe of a political rival.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky said last Thursday that Trump did not seek to blackmail him during the phone call in July or at a meeting in September.
He denied knowing that U.S. military aid to Ukraine had been blocked at the time of the call. His defense minister later informed him about the delay and he spoke with Vice President Mike Pence about the issue at a meeting in September in Poland, said Zelensky.
Pelosi announced the launching of the inquiry the night before Trump was set to release the full unclassified, unredacted transcript of his call. The transcript later revealed there was no reference to a quid pro quo.
The Democrats have been conducting hearings in secrecy and recently shifted to what they refer to as “depositions” in order to limit the questioning to one attorney per round. They are ludicrously trying to rebrand their inquisitions as grand jury proceedings. Under the current arrangement they get to call all the shots, blocking the minority members from issuing subpoenas and questioning witnesses.
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) said on Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation, “We want to make sure that we meet the needs of the investigation and not give the president or his legal minions the opportunity to tailor their testimony and in some cases fabricate testimony.”
Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume called the House inquiry “peculiar” Tuesday on Tucker Carlson Tonight, adding “I frankly can’t think of a good reason, from her point of view, why she would hold a vote.” Hume disappointingly praised the move as ‘shrewd’ but should have called it what it really is — corrupt. Commentators of his stature betray our democracy when they don’t call out Democrats in unambiguous terms for their abuse of power.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unequivocally called their phony proceedings Tuesday unfair and a violation of President Trump’s rights. He noted that past presidents and their teams were given access to evidence in prior impeachment proceedings. They also had the standing to suggest their own witnesses and were granted subpoena powers so that the minority had due process. Pelosi insists a formal vote isn’t required for Democrats to continue with their probe.
Now that Pelosi’s strategy seems to be unravelling, Republicans should reject whatever the Democrats produce from the hearings as tainted. The Senate must not give legitimacy to a process that was not conducted in an open manner with due process rights for everyone involved. The consequences of this one-party inquiry must be so politically steep that no Speaker of the House would dare try this again.