Skip to main content

Pelosi In Connecticut



Speaker of the U.S. House Nancy Pelosi came to Connecticut trailing clouds of impeachment.

Impeachment is the removal of a governmental official from office. When the official is a president duly elected to office in a national vote -- rather than, say, a judge -- cautious politicians tend to be cautious. Pelosi herself is said to be, in most news reports, opposed to impeachment. Newly elected U.S. Representative Jahana Hayes said she would favor impeachment “if the facts merit.”


Pelosi appears to have herded the Connecticut’s U.S. Congressional Delegation, all Democrats, to her view, most clearly articulated by U.S. Representative-For-Life John Larson of the impregnable 1st District. “I commend the speaker,” Larson said “I think she has taken the right tack ... especially when you’re talking about something as monumental as impeachment. It’s important that we follow regular order and the rule of law [or] you risk having it become entirely partisan."

It would seem the Democrats do not want impeachment, which could be brought to a screeching halt in the Republican controlled U.S. Senate. But they do want to keep the issue on their front burners through the 2020 campaign. This is why Democrat leaders are agitating for an “impeachment inquiry,” thought by many to be a fishing expedition designed to turn over hidden impeachable offenses.

U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal gave the game away when, shortly after the disappointing Mueller’s report came to light, he told an interviewer how important it was that the media should keep the impeachment embers burning.

Special prosecutor Robert Mueller had poured ice water on the Democrat campaign to convict the president of collusion – not a crime, in any case -- though Mueller did seem to be waving a hindering prosecution flag both in his report and in a summation of his report delivered shortly after U.S.  Attorney General William Barr, the left’s most recent punching bag, released Mueller’s lightly redacted report. Barr was under no legal obligation to release the less than bombshell dud.

A few months ago, Pelosi’s daughter, intending a compliment, said of her mother, “She’ll cut your throat, and you won’t even know it.” Progressives in Connecticut and elsewhere are having some difficulty in swallowing Pelosi’s view of impeachment. Lucrezia Borgia would have impeached the president months ago. Progressives, a force to be reckoned with in Connecticut politics, understand correctly that the sole punishment for impeachment is removal from office, and Pelosi has said she would rather “see Trump imprisoned rather than impeached.”

Well then: 1) Mueller and others have told us that a president cannot be indicted for crimes while he is in office; 2) it is by no means certain that Trump will not prevail against the Democrat choice for president in 2020; 3) should the unthinkable happen, and Democrats are unable to capture the U.S Senate while holding the House in 2020, Pelosi and other Trump hunters might not be able to imprison their quarry until 2026, when the president leaves office.

Progressives in Connecticut are becoming impatient. They want to know how long Pelosi and other Democrat moderates intend to engage in rhetorical foreplay without bringing the matter of impeachment to a climax? Nor are they alone. There are signs that an impeachment-approving media is also becoming restless.

No one in the Connecticut’s media brusquely put the question to Pelosi during her brief stay: If you believe that Trump has committed yet amorphous crimes for which he might be imprisoned, why do you not favor impeachment now? The answer to this question is not needlessly complex.

Impeachment is entirely a political affair of the heart. If the Democrats had command of both the House and the Senate, they could proceed with an impeachment in both congressional chambers – particularly if they had the criminal goods on Trump. But, so long as the Senate remains in Republican hands, removing Trump from office remains a consummation devoutly to be wished. Therefore, Democrat leaders intend to use the threat of impeachment and seemingly endless court proceedings to deprive Trump of a second term in office. Impeachment for them is a political cattle prod, not an executioner’s axe.

Impeachment, Pelosi told Democrats gathered at the “Bailey Dinner” is “a very, very serious thing and we must have our strongest hand.” According to an account in CTPost, Pelosi praised “several House committee chairmen who are ‘silently exposing the full extent of the president’s wrongdoing and corruption’ in preparation for continuing court battles over the ‘criminal cover-up.’

“’We do understand the urgency of now,’ she said, ‘and that we must fight this fight and win it for our freedoms, for our people, for our country, for our land, for our values. Everything is at stake.’”

No murmurs were heard from progressive back-benchers in Connecticut reminding Pelosi that “the urgency of now” means now, and not election day, Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Lucrezia Borgia would have understood the meaning of “now.”


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Obamagod!

My guess is that Barack Obama is a bit too modest to consider himself a Christ figure , but artist will be artists. And over at “ To Wit ,” a blog run by professional blogger, journalist, radio commentator and ex-Hartford Courant religious writer Colin McEnroe, chocolateers will be chocolateers. Nice to have all this attention paid to Christ so near to Easter.

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Did Chris Murphy Engage in Private Diplomacy?

Murphy after Zarif blowup -- Getty Images Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, up for reelection this year, had “a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference” in February 2020, according to a posting written by Mollie Hemingway , the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. Was Murphy commissioned by proper authorities to participate in the meeting, or was he freelancing? If the former, there is no problem. If the latter, Murphy was courting political disaster. “Such a meeting,” Hemingway wrote at the time, “would mean Murphy had done the type of secret coordination with foreign leaders to potentially undermine the U.S. government that he accused Trump officials of doing as they prepared for Trump’s administration. In February 2017, Murphy demanded investigations of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because he had a phone call with his counterpart-to-be in Russia. “’Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – e