Pelosi’s ‘reality show’ renewed despite Trump’s departure

In 1974, “Get Christie Love” was a one-season crime drama TV series starring the late Teresa Graves as an undercover female detective. Despite the show’s success and Graves’ role as the second African-American female lead in a network drama, the glitter of Hollywood failed to fulfill her spiritual needs. So, she left the bright lights to embrace a pious life.

Forty-one years later, in 2016, “Get Christie Love” was replaced with another drama, “Get Donald Trump,” a real-life show that played for four years, starring Nancy Pelosi. Despite most people tiring of the program, Pelosi revived it for yet another season so she can pursue her anti-Trumpism religion. As Pelosi embarks upon her second attempt to impeach Trump, she seeks his crucifixion for the horrendous and unforgiving crime of scorning her.

To some, Pelosi is a champion. But we need to examine what makes this woman “tick” and why, in jousting with Trump, she will fail.

Hell hath no fury like a speaker of the House scorned, especially when that speaker is Pelosi. While she takes tremendous schadenfreude from knowing history will show Trump was the first president to be impeached twice, she fails to recognize what history will attribute to her. It will tell of a vengeful woman, subordinating the interests of the American people, who were enduring a pandemic, plus the country’s national security interests, to her own desires for revenge. It will tell the tale of a woman so full of hate she disgracefully ripped up the president’s 2020 State of the Union Address as he finished delivering it, in full view of millions of Americans. It will tell the story of a speaker who was not a political leader committed to serving her country but one full of toxic hatred and showwomanship. It will show she was a speaker who flipped on issues, such as illegal immigration, which she opposed until Trump sought to build a wall. Future generations of Americans will look back at Pelosi’s embarrassing conduct in abject horror and disbelief that she, entrusted with so much responsibility as speaker, lacked sufficient self-control to act professionally.

In January 2019, we were warned about Pelosi’s poor bedside manner by her own daughter, Alexandra Pelosi. As Pelosi was dealing with Trump on funding for the wall he sought to build along the Mexican border, Alexandra described her mother fairly intensely:

“She’ll cut your head off, and you won’t even know you’re bleeding. That’s all you need to know about her. No one ever won betting against Nancy Pelosi. She’s persevered. You got to give her credit. No matter what you think of her, you have to give her credit because, think about it, think about all these presidents she’s endured, right?”

While one does not get a particularly “warm and fuzzy” feeling for Pelosi from Alexandra’s firsthand description, this description reveals a woman swimming in a sea of hatred, refusing to grasp the life ring of reason floating nearby. Various reasons, both constitutional and pragmatic, dictate why she should have canceled her “Get Donald Trump” show, but she refused to do so due to a mindset that should have disqualified her from serving as speaker.

There are two issues arising from Pelosi’s submission to the Senate of an “Article of Impeachment,” claiming “incitement of insurrection” by Trump who allegedly was “singularly responsible” for inciting a riot, but sans the damning verbiage so proving.

The first issue is procedural – i.e., whether impeachment of a president no longer in office is even constitutional. If unconstitutional, the case should be dismissed without discussion of its merits.

As to procedure, while no precedent exists for impeaching a former president, Democrats argue precedents exist for impeaching other senior former officials such as Sen. William Blount in 1797 and Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876. However, the Constitution makes impeachment available as a course of action against the president, vice president and other government servants for violating the public trust so as to be able to remove them – and this is the relevant wording – “from office.” Since only a sitting, and not a former, official can be removed “from office,” the Blount and Belknap impeachments were unconstitutional – and so is Trump’s second impeachment.

Democrats fail to see the back-blast this issue raises. If impeachment was valid for Blount and Belknap and, therefore, for Trump, then it is also valid to impeach Hillary Clinton, James Comey and other Obama-era officials whom we now know violated the public trust.

Sen. Ron Paul, R-Ky., forced the constitutionality issue upon the Senate. As a supermajority of 67 votes are needed to convict Trump for incitement, only 34 votes by senators believing the action to be unconstitutional would warrant a dismissal. While Paul’s resolution was rejected, 45 senators – all Republican – voted affirmatively, 11 more than needed to reject an impeachment conviction. Yet Democrats continue wasting time and money moving forward with impeachment.

Interestingly, of the decided voting fraud cases brought to court after the 2020 presidential election, all were dismissed on procedural and not evidentiary grounds, as should this case be.

Another unconstitutionality indicator is circumstantial. The Constitution mandates the chief justice of the Supreme Court must preside over the president’s impeachment trial, which Justice John Roberts did for the first trial. But Roberts has declined to preside over a second trial, arguably because he knows it to be unconstitutional. Therefore, as the Senate’s president pro tempore, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., will preside, which, in itself, raises issues of fairness.

As to the second issue – Trump’s alleged incitement of violence – it is revealing the Article of Impeachment fails to provide specific language. That is because none exists. Without going into detail, a transcript of Trump’s speech fails to support incitement for lacking two key elements – imminent and intentional threat of violence. Arguably, these elements were included in a 2020 pro-abortion rally speech given in front of the U.S. Supreme Court Building by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., threatening Trump-appointed justices about which no Democrat complained.

Pelosi’s second “Get Donald Trump” impeachment campaign will go down in history as transforming impeachment – a presidential accountability tool – into a political weapon. When the 2024 presidential election rolls around, Pelosi, by then put out to pasture but still chewing her cud of vengeance, will relish believing she has successfully destroyed a Trump resurgence. And, after all, that is really what this impeachment is all about.


Via Wnd

Around The Web