So Nancy Pelosi now says that she will not submit the impeachment notice to the Senate. Uh, Okay.
All month, she was telling us that the impeachment was so urgent that it could not wait for time-consuming distractions like …
(ii) an actual percipient witness or two
(iii) a charge of bribery
(iv) a charge of treason
(v) a high crime
(vi) a misdemeanor in the constitutional sense
(vii) any crime, infraction, or violation of a local ordinance like jaywalking
(viii) subpoenaing testimony from witnesses close to the president like John Bolton
(ix) … or his top aide, John Kupperman.
There just was no time. December 25 is next Wednesday and, as nobilities like the Hon. Rashida Tlaib and the now-divorcing adulteress and home-wrecker bedecked in religious garb, the Hon. Ilhan Omar, might have said it, Congress just had to get the M-f-er impeached by the night before Christmas. Since Pelosi has gone out of her way to tell all of us, just the other day, that she makes all her decisions (except those pertaining to abortion, birth control, gay marriage, assisted suicide, etc.) “As a Catholic,” she clearly was racing to skip the annoyances of procedural due process and legal compliances so that she, too, could be home in time to open her presents under the Tannenbaum, undoubtedly spruced for her PETA voters with politically correct artificial fir, in one of her several multi-million-dollar mansions sprawled around the Homeless State. There was just no time to wait.
Yet now Pelosi announces that, with Impeachment Article 1 in hand and Impeachment Article 2 in hand — both of them carrying with them as much constitutional seriousness and jurisprudential sobriety as Thing 1 and Thing 2 — she will not be sending the travesty to the Senate so soon after all. ’Twas days before Christmas and all through the Democrats’ corrupt House, the one thing still stirring was a gavel and louse.
The latest Pelosi gambit underscores the core constitutional argument that Trump supporters have been making from the outset: If you want to find “Abuse of Power,” as Professor Jonathan Turley just testified, the epicenter of its locus is in the corrupt Democrat House. And if you want to find “Obstruction of Congress,” well — what else do you call it when the House of Representatives passes a bill and then one Evita Perón wannabe says “Well, I won’t pass it along to the Senate, and you can’t make me”?
Don’t cry for her, America. We have a Constitution. It lays out rules. Since Pelosi is so knowledgeable about her Arabic-numeraled Article 1, here is another Article I, albeit Roman-numeraled: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” Id. at §3. Thus, Pelosi does not have any say in trying impeachments. Just as she and her corrupt Democrat House have demonstrated enormous difficulty in grasping the concept of “separation of powers,” perhaps because she has only two Articles, while the federal judiciary’s role is not laid out in the Constitution until Article III, so again she fails Civics 101 by being utterly oblivious to the limits even of her legislative power.
Nancy is in the House, one among 435 (actually fewer since the untimely departure of the star-crossed Iron-Crossed swing-district swing representative, the Hon. Katie Hill, Democrat of California). Pelosi is in the lower chamber. She does not get to approve judicial nominations, cabinet designees, or treaties. She only gets to hit things with a gavel and take orders from Ocasio-Cortez. If the multi-domiciled Ms. Pelosi wants to access the next rung of power, she needs to get herself into yet another house, the United States Senate. Compared to Dianne Feinstein, the San Franciscan who currently holds such a seat, Nancy is a veritable spring chicken, seven years her junior. Pelosi will be a mere 80 this coming March 26, just entering octogenarianism (not another San Francisco-based religion), well in the preferred age group for Democrat presidential candidates. But until Nancy seeks to capture Feinstein’s seat or the mid-octogenarian Willie Brown’s fancy (the other way to get a California U.S. Senate seat), she will have to remain content with her gavel and her choice of women’s couture colors (black for impeachments, white for State of the Union addresses). If she likes, she can teach her All Blacks a haka next time.
A history lesson: We overthrew King George. No more tyranny. In America, the head of government is checked and balanced by the legislature and the courts; the legislature is checked by the president and the courts; and the courts are checked by the president and the legislature. Within the legislature, the House is checked and balanced by the Senate, and the Senate by the House. Nancy got her Urgent Impeachment, and her 15 minutes of fame are done. Just as with Judge Ito, the promenade of ephemeral fame ultimately gives way to the cruel dance of history. She now has taken her most unconstitutional constitutional without even a star to show for it on Hollywood’s Walk. (Only real stars like this guy get one.)
Since we are back to civics lessons, let us refresh: Every person is innocent until proven guilty. That is why juries in criminal cases are instructed to bring back a verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty.” They are not instructed to decide “guilty” or “innocent.” It is a given, axiomatic, that the accused is innocent; he or she does not need a jury to render that judgment. The only question is whether or not facts found at trial alter that status. Thus, the president does not have to testify to establish his virtue. Indeed, unlike in the Schiff Star Chamber, in real American courts, where testimony is open and documents and records automatically are in the public domain (Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 95 S. Ct. 1029 (1975); Gates v. Discovery Communications, Inc., 34 Cal. 4th 679, 21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 663 (2004)), a jury conviction will be thrown out by the trial court or overturned on appeal if a prosecutor even hints to a jury that it should draw a negative inference from an accused choosing not to testify in his or her defense.
Although a House impeachment is not exactly the same as a grand jury indictment, it is close enough to emphasize that an impeachment, like an indictment, proves absolutely nothing. It simply means that, by symbolically altering courtroom rules and preliminarily allowing the prosecution every possible advantage over the defense, the prosecution has established that maybe it has something worth bringing to trial and maybe not. In that way, we avoid trials where there is not even a scintilla of anything. But without an actual trial and a conviction, there is nothing. If a prosecutor convenes a grand jury and gets an indictment but then chooses not to bring the case to trial, then there is nothing.
Mitch McConnell is so polite, a true Kentucky Colonel, that he will not tell Ms. Pelosi what she can stuff into her Christmas tree stocking display next week. But he does not owe her the time of day, much less input or even a polite listening, when it comes to how the Senate will conduct its trial or whether or not it even will bother moving forward without first bringing a motion to dismiss on grounds of failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Lindsey Graham, who demonstrated during the Kavanaugh hearings the limits of his patience with Democrat lying and deceit among his fellow senators, surely will not take guff from the lowly Pelosi as to how he should conduct his Senate Committee on the Judiciary. If she does not forward the impeachment, historians will record that it simply never happened, and they will indict her, not Mr. Trump.
The reality is that she is terrified to hand it over. As Chuck Schumer’s hapless demands for even more witnesses evince, Pelosi and Schiff did such a feeble job that she has no case to present. She is humiliated, like a Marcia Clark who gets the courtroom spotlight for a year and leaves behind a legacy that she could not convict an obvious murderer even with so much evidence that, in order to make room to store all of it, they had to ask the guy to wear some of it. For Madam Speaker, like a dowager whose time has come to hand over the estate keys to her progeny, including to the hated and unworthy daughter-in-law who married her impeccable son, Pelosi’s moment is done, and she has to decide whether to (a) hand it over or (b1) Abuse her Power and (b2) Obstruct Congress by remaining petulantly puerile. Heading the Resistance, she resists history’s verdict as she now sets the table for President Trump to emerge, unexpectedly and unintentionally, with a remarkable new claim to Mount Rushmore: the first president in American history so deeply loved by the American people that they reelected him to be their president only months after he was impeached. Wow — the Democrats and their Corrupt Journalist Corps never saw that one coming.
So the cipher trembles to pass along the indecipherable charges, aware that her ambitious production netted her the sum of aught and naught: three years to produce, a moment to dismiss. One is reminded of the epic scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark, where an overbearing evildoer with contemptuous laughter in his voice and insatiable bloodlust in his eye, accoutered like Pelosi in Impeachment Black, ferociously demonstrates publicly before a crowded audience on a parched dusty street somewhere in Arabia, dramatically twirling and flipping his ostensibly deathly huge saber to intimidate and terrify Harrison Ford’s Indiana Jones, on the cusp of slicing him to pieces. Indie sees the overwhelming display of imposing doom, but — bored and sweating — just pulls out his pistol, eliminates him instantly, and turns to the next order of business. Pelosi is that thug. Her two “Articles of Impeachment” are that saber. The Senate is that bullet — and thus will pass the haters with the lost bark.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.