Share This Article with a Friend!


Assault on America, Day 376: Impeachment sham the type of DC circus no one finds gratifying

Pelosi and Articles
“It’s a circus.”

Of course the word “circus” can be used as both an adjective and a noun. As a noun, “circus” means, “event, show, festival, spectacle, extravaganza, revel or performance.” As an adjective (circus-y or circuslike), the word means, “Resembling or characteristic of a circus.”

Thanks to Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her band of Trump Derangement Syndrome afflicted party members, Washington is a circus… or is circuslike. Both work in today’s vernacular.

Anyone who’s been around the American political scene long enough has heard our otherwise weighty representative democracy -- or more aptly, our republican form of government -- described as a sideshow, carnival, or circus, as though it’s all one huge stage-produced extravaganza purposely designed to amuse, entertain and amaze citizen onlookers. The media aids in the ruse. True, with the elected “performers” engaged in a non-stop series of antics and otherwise impossible-to-replicate pranks and frolics, one might easily assume the whole thing is fake and intended to leave the impression with normal people that these players aren’t serious.

“It’s not real,” something every parent tells their child when a particularly embarrassing, culturally transgressing or uncomfortably violent part of a movie jogs across a screen. We’ve tried to protect the innocent from buying into the producer, writer and director’s sick sense of extremism -- or counteract the youth’s inability to comprehend what’s in front of him or her.

Perhaps we should start describing Nancy Pelosi’s and the House Democrats’ impeachment of Donald Trump in the same fashion. To rehash, Democrats passed two articles of impeachment just before Christmas, Speaker Pelosi immediately announced she was refusing to deliver them, and now, in mid-January, the powers-that-be say the trial, a.k.a. “show” is about to begin.

A circus you say? American politics is circus-y or circuslike? You’d be right in both instances. But a lot of people believe Pelosi will pay for turning our government into a faux festival featuring clowns without makeup and a circus atmosphere without rings or a competent ringmaster. David Harsanyi wrote at National Review, “[W]hatever you make of the case against Donald Trump, it’s getting increasingly difficult to argue that this amateurish, constantly shifting effort by the House has been effective. After two dramatic emergency impeachment hearings, a pretend standoff, and massive cooperative coverage from the media, poll numbers haven’t budged. They may even have ticked back toward Donald Trump…

“My working theory is this: Pelosi realized that impeachment was a mistake. She didn’t want the president to be able tell voters that he had been exonerated by Senate. The only way to mitigate the damage was to undertake a ham-fisted effort to attack the Senate trial and dampen, or perhaps circumvent, that inevitable moment.

“In the process, however, Pelosi destroyed the Democrats’ justification for rushing impeachment in the first place. Nadler and Schiff both argued that Trump’s tenure in office constituted a national emergency, and that the only way to save the republic from another stolen election was to move quickly.”

Pelosi herself used the “emergency” nature of Trump’s alleged mental instability and corruption as the reason to pursue impeachment in the first place, yet the act-now-or-else nature of the movement’s been sacrificed by her own inaction for no good reason. If Pelosi really believed the House “did its job” by passing formal articles of impeachment against Trump, why would she care about trial specifications and the easily predicted end result in the senate? And if the senate is supposed to be an impartial “jury” -- which it is not -- shouldn’t the Democrats be content with obtaining an indictment and passing responsibility for the dirty work on to someone else?

Evidently, Pelosi wants her House caucus to act as “jury” as well. Who needs the senate to weigh-in on the process when you’ve got Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler -- and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “squad” -- convinced that Trump’s a charlatan who must be purged?

One concept all students learn in law school is that crimes are against the state and society, not individuals. What, a murder isn’t a personal thing? Well, yes and no. If the matter reaches the jury, it’s the state vs. the accused, not victim Jane Doe vs. perpetrator John Doe. Policemen catch criminals in the act, arrest them and file reports for the state’s representative to assess whether to press formal charges for violation of a statute or regulatory infraction on behalf of the people. Then, if the action reaches the courtroom, it’s in the hands of the judge and jury to decide.

The prosecutor argues on behalf of the state; defense counsel presents the accused’s side of the story and the jury rules on the facts. They are separate and distinct.

With this impeachment sham, Pelosi thinks she’s entitled to fulfill all the roles, including playing the part of victim. She’s argued that Trump committed a crime against the Constitution and the U.S. government, which involves all of us, including her. Then, she set out to play the policeman’s role by gathering “evidence” of Trump’s wrongdoing. Next, she acted as prosecutor, determined to press charges, and conducted supposedly impartial “hearings” and solicited testimony from witnesses for an indictment. After that, she was judge and told the jury -- the House -- to convict.

It was all done to save us from Trump, don’t you see? Trump’s conversation with the Ukrainian president was so “dangerous” to the safety and security of the United States that he had to be kicked out of office, NOW, instead of letting the voters decide his political fate later this year. Yet the dictating, power-hungry Pelosi got cold feet at the last minute and apparently changed her mind. Or, as Harsanyi’s story indicated, she stole the idea of hanging on to the impeachment articles from CNN.

Pelosi may be a self-interested politics-first warped establishmentarian, but she isn’t dumb. She certainly realizes she’s in a no-win situation. If she doesn’t pass the impeachment articles to the senate, to the American people it looks as though the Democrats’ impeachment “investigation” and hearings were all a big… “circus,” a witch-hunt without a cauldron, torches, or a hill with gallows at the top.

Likewise, if she brings the articles to the senate (check out this very clever GOP video featuring Rep. Chip Roy showing her how to find the upper chamber!) and says: “Fooled you! I was intending to bring them all along, I just got distracted by my Christmas shopping list and donating all my money to help the DREAMERS obtain legal representation for their deportation hearings,” she’ll look like an even bigger idiot than she already does.

Meanwhile, the significant percentage of her caucus that was elected from districts that went for Trump in 2016 is probably stewing, impatiently tapping their feet on the floor and wondering out loud to anyone who would listen, “Why the h--l isn’t our ‘leader’ making the impeachment articles into a giant paper airplane and lofting it towards the senate side??? Doesn’t she care about me? Our majority? Every day we’ve got gobs of angry constituents calling and asking about healthcare and bipartisan cooperation and all that other crapola the consultants put in our campaign commercials. What gives?”

What the American public isn’t doing -- at least according to the people I’ve talked to -- is worrying about impeachment or the fact Trump remains in office according to his constitutionally specified four-year term. To most folks -- at least the sensible ones in both parties -- Trump is legitimately in office because he won the 2016 election. The Electoral College cast their votes for him and he should be free to execute the president’s duties until his time is up, either after failing to be reelected in November or term-limited in five years.

And that’s it. The rest is Pelosi’s “circus” emitting climate change inducing hot air. “It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing” (hat tip to my wonderful Shakespeare professor at UCLA all those years ago).

Having already leaped over the line by prosecuting the “emergency” lie to begin with, Pelosi is clean out of options. Her only recourse now is to stand meekly by and watch Mitch McConnell’s senate do whatever they want with the House’s precious articles of impeachment. Everyone knows, if you sell a house or a car you no longer get to determine how it’s used, decorated or treated. You can’t tell the new owners, “I don’t like that color,” or protest if they leave trash lying around, or remove your prized rose bushes from the front plant bed.

The same goes for the Democrat presidential candidates, several of whom are senators who must be just as anxious as everyone else to see this farce put to rest. Even national polling frontrunner Joe Biden likely rues the day impeachment was brought up. He wants to get past it… though history is most definitely not on his side either way.

Reid Wilson wrote at The Hill, “[M]odern political history suggests that the path to the White House is difficult for candidates who have run and lost before — and that if Democrats choose Biden, they might be repeating the same mistakes that doomed Clinton four years ago...

“Modern presidential history shows voters almost always prefer an outsider candidate who pledges to shake up Washington. In the post-war era, the fresh new candidate has almost always beaten the experienced insider: Dwight Eisenhower was an outsider within his own party...

“History is not kind to Democrats who have run for and lost their party’s nomination before. In the last century, only five candidates who ran for and lost the nomination came back to win the nomination in a subsequent campaign.”

Biden’s not only run twice before, he’s been maneuvering to be president for over 30 years. Joe’s first try was in 1988 -- when newcomer and potential change agent Pete Buttigieg was only seven years old -- so how fresh is he? He argues that if he beats Trump, he’ll restore America to the good ‘ol days of Barack Obama… Who the heck wants that?

And thanks to Nancy Pelosi and her ill-thought through impeachment fantasies, Biden would enter office with an incredibly divided nation full of people who wouldn’t be caught dead working with the other side. Here’s thinking they all wish they could have a do-over.

There’s little doubting many Democrats now realize that impeachment has turned into a hopeless fiasco without any clear chance at redemption. With each moment that goes by Speaker Nancy Pelosi digs the hole a little deeper, a mistake voters aren’t likely to forget as the calendar moves towards election day.

Share this