Skip to main content

Pelosi And The Impeachment Pause


Nancy Pelosi
Ever since she did a 180 degree turnabout on impeachment, Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been wrapping herself in the warm folds of the U.S. Constitution.

The day after the House impeached Trump, Pelosi declared the partisan vote, “A great day for the Constitution of the United States, a sad day for America that the president’s reckless activities,” only two of which are mentioned in the indictment brought by the Democrat dominated House, “necessitated us having to introduce articles of impeachment.”

Even Genghis Khan was more real – “woke” in the language of millennials.  “The greatest joy a man can have,” said the great Khan, “is to dance on the chest of his enemy.” Moving inexorably towards impeachment during much of President Donald Trump’s first term in office, Democrats have been dancing “somberly” while the cameras have been rolling. But, when they are together far from live mics, is it not possible to imagine them greeting joyously the above the fold picture and headline that appeared in a Hartford paper the day after the House voted to impeach the President? It shows Trump bowing – as if to his fate – surrounded by an out of focus halo, possibly the Great Seal of the United States, while above his head a one inch headline trumpets – “IMPEACHED.”

Impeachment in the House is very much like a Grand Jury indictment, a field day for the prosecution. Since no trial defense is permitted in closed Grand Jury proceedings, indictments in the hands of able prosecutors tend to be slam-dunks.

Impeachment is a process, not a vote, and the process  requires a submittal by the House of  an indictment to the Senate, where a trial on the charges is conducted. The real show, during which innocence or guilt is proven, occurs at trial, where the terms of the indictment are tested – i.e. tried -- before either a judge or jury. Democrats in the House so far have had the theater of action all to themselves. Part of their impeachment proceedings were conducted in secret, behind closed doors. That portion of the proceedings conducted openly relied heavily on testimony provided by second-hand sources, miscalled “witnesses.”

A witness is someone who has direct knowledge of an event. Information received at second hand generally is not allowed in trials because such informants are gossips, not witnesses. And at trial the defense is permitted to question not only the sufficiency of the charges in the indictment, but also the witnesses, who are expected  – this should come as no surprise to Democrats such as U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal, for two decades Connecticut’s Attorney General – to have witnessed directly events that bear on the indictment. Hearsay evidence is rightly discounted in a trial during which an accused’s life and sacred honor depend upon a verdict reached by a jury that is told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

If transmittal to the Senate of the impeachable offenses fashioned by the House is necessary to impeachment, the Headline in the Hartford paper may be, at best, premature. Pelosi has decided to delay transmittal until she is certain that Democrats will receive “fair treatment” in the Republican dominated Senate. Fair treatment, Republicans in the Senate may suppose, is treatment the opposite of that accorded Trump in the House, which relied on hearsay evidence and refused to allow Trump to present a vigorous defense.

But Pelosi, and her partisan associates, has her own idea of “just” treatment. Just treatment must involve an assent to the indictment produced, some would say unfairly, in the House and, to this end, both Pelosi and Senator Schumer of New York are demanding that Trump’s accusers should be allowed to summon witnesses that had not participated in the House's deliberations. Apparently, witnesses not called during the House deliberations were not necessary to secure the indictment of Trump on two counts: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

The partisan Democrat House, in other words, returned an indictment on the evidence it considered but does not wish to defend its indictment in a Senate trial without being able to call upon additional witness testimony that played no part in its indictment. There is not a court in the land that would regard this process as “fair” or even just.

In addition, the Constitution in which Democrats have wrapped themselves absolutely requires the transmittal of a House indictment to the Senate, without which impeachment cannot occur. Pelosi is holding the transmittal hostage to persuade Republicans to allow further witnesses to testify at the Senate trial – perhaps in the hope of uncovering from new witness testimony a crime to give weight to their light as air impeachment charges, unsupported by any criminal charge, Democrats having removed criminal charges such as treason or bribery from their indictment.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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."

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.

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