Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 383: Impeachment farce will sound Democrats’ death knell in November

White Flag Congress
With President Donald Trump’s impeachment (farce) trial set to begin this week, perhaps it’s fitting to first take a speculative/fictional look (but could be true, who knows? Democrats make stuff up, so why shouldn’t we?) at how Nancy Pelosi might’ve narrowed down her choices for “managers” to present the Democrats’ case:

Surface characteristics are everything to Democrats -- that’s a fact.

--The scene is the Speaker’s office in the United States Capitol, a week before Nancy Pelosi’s henchmen transported the long-since passed articles of impeachment over to the senate side last Wednesday. Pelosi decided to keep a tight lock on the papers after she’d glanced at the calendar and noticed that beginning the trial process too early would most definitely interfere with -- and possibly preempt -- her party’s final presidential debate prior to the Iowa Caucuses.

So she held off and told the media it was all about witnesses and Mitch McConnell or something. ‘They’re so stupid they’ll believe anything I say anyway,’ Pelosi quipped to no one in particular.

‘I don’t give a hoot about those fools,’ she chuckled to herself, this time thinking about Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker (remember, this is before the New Jersey pol left the race), ‘But I don’t want to be forever viewed as the one who maneuvered Pete Buttigieg into being our nominee. I had to do something, so I figured I’d just hide the articles here under the stack of papers on my desk.’

The others in the office, Democrat leaders and a small collection of bored-looking staff, wondered why Pelosi was smiling and mumbling to herself again, but they were used to her odd behavior reminiscent of a kook in a nuthouse and didn’t think much about it. She’ll get to the point when she’s ready, they thought, and they didn’t have to wait long.

“We have to make it diverse,” Pelosi elaborated.

Come again?

“We need to make our impeachment managers look like America,” Pelosi went on. “Everyone knows Trump and those Republican senators are a bunch of white supremacist-shielding yahoo rednecks, so let’s give the TV audience a good demonstration of what Democrats are all about. Therefore, I’m going to consider race, sex, religion, etc. in naming the managers… you know, the important stuff.”

“But Madame Speaker, shouldn’t we select the people who can best make our case for impeachment?”, a male voice interjected from the back of the room. Pelosi initially couldn’t tell who it was, but etched a check mark on the back of an envelope to censure the idiot (she’d find out later) and punish him by denying him a cut from her personal campaign chest when he asks for it.

“Nope. As Democrats, we’re all about diversity -- substance and talents be damned,” Pelosi tersely replied as she snatched a piece of paper with handwritten scribbles from a drawer. Upon briefly reviewing the list, she ended the suspense by uttering the names aloud.

“Well, we’re gonna have (Adam B.) Schiff and (Jerrold) Nadler there for sure. They’re both Jewish and will keep the liberal intellectual set happy,” Pelosi instructed. “A lot of our big Hollywood supporters are Jewish and we must ensure that Trump and the Republicans don’t dip deeper into our once-solid hold on the Jewish community. Many Jews recognized that we care more about ‘diversity’ and keeping the Muslims pacified than we do about supporting Israel, so Schiff and Nadler will present the right appearances to the right people. I’ll talk to (Ilhan) Omar and (Rashida) Tlaib separately and tell them to tone down the anti-Semitism talk for a while. ”

The room attendees nodded in unison. “Makes good sense,” one of them uttered.

“Next we need some African-Americans,” Pelosi indicated. “We’ll go with Hakeem Jeffries. Not only is he black, he’s from New York, and we definitely need to soothe the donors up that direction. Plus, he’s Baptist -- but he’s got a Muslim sounding name -- it’s like a bonus!” Nancy proclaimed with a fittingly sizeable grin. “Then, we’re gonna use Val Butler Demmings. She’s black and from Florida, so she’ll keep all those Electoral Votes in play for our nominee this year.”

“GREAT thinking, Madame Speaker!”, someone reflexively bellowed.

“After that, we need a Latina woman and a freshman, so how about Sylvia Garcia? She’s both! Also, she’s from Texas, and we need to turn the Lone Star State blue. Anyone object?”, Pelosi queried. The room remained silent as a tomb. Hearing none, Pelosi continued. “We’re pretty darn diverse already, but we need something extra. We need a Native American.” The others looked puzzled, trying to think of one in their caucus, which they don’t have. “Colorado’s Jason Crow is perfect!”

“Umm, Madame Speaker, Jason Crow was born in Wisconsin and he’s as white as you are,” blurted out a very scared sounding female voice. “But you’re right. His name sounds like an Indian guy from the high plains. And ‘Pocahontas’ Warren gets away with claiming her own make-believe ancestry. So no one will know the difference!”

The onlookers erupted in applause. The ruse will fool everyone!

“Lastly,” Pelosi added, “We’ll go with Zoe Lofgren. She’s a liberal from northern California, just like me, so that’s good enough from a diversity standpoint. We can’t have too many white faces, but no one will make a stink about it because she’s a woman and a huge LGBTQ supporter. Everyone will be thinking about Trump anyway.”

When she finished talking, Pelosi banged her ceremonial gavel against the desk to dismiss those in attendance. The meeting adjourned and the rest is history.

--Regardless of how it actually happened, Pelosi’s House managers are poised to present the Democrats’ arguments in favor of removing President Trump from office starting tomorrow. Opinions vary on how long the witch hunt -- I mean trial -- will last, but there’s some concern it might brush up against the annual State of the Union address. Would it matter to anyone?

Alex Swoyer and Gabriella Muñoz reported at The Washington Times, “President Trump could be defending himself against House Democrats’ impeachment charges at the same time he is touting his accomplishments during the State of the Union address, now that the House has sent over articles of impeachment to start a Senate trial...

“The House’s 228-193 vote to transmit the articles of impeachment also deputized seven Democrats to prosecute the case and allocated the use of funds for the trial, which is scheduled to begin Tuesday. That is just two weeks before the president is set to address the nation in front of Mrs. Pelosi’s chamber. President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999 took about six weeks from start to finish.

“’That seems like a fairly tight deadline given what we are facing,’ said Senate Majority Whip John Thune, South Dakota Republican. ‘If we go six days a week once we get started and get through the opening arguments and the questions — and the question of witnesses will obviously have to be answered — and if people decide they want to call witnesses, it could obviously go on for a while.’”

The trial could technically go on in perpetuity if Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- and 51 Republicans voting on motions -- wish it to last well into the spring. As has been well established by now, McConnell enjoys tremendous sway over the conduct of the proceedings. We already know he wasn’t too thrilled with the “show” Pelosi put on last week (she handed out souvenir pens and smiled for photographs like the tasteless, callous pol that she is), which very well could result in the political gamesmanship being ramped up to the nth degree.

McConnell pointed out that Pelosi and her Democrat colleagues are no longer in charge of the impeachment process. The Constitution awards final judgement to the senate and there’s an entirely different mindset waiting for the Speaker’s “managers” in the upper chamber now. Adam Schiff doesn’t get to dictate who can and cannot speak and he can’t hold anyone in contempt either. The old saying goes that “revenge is a dish best served cold” -- but it might not be possible at this juncture. Everyone’s “hot” over the time and energy wasted to pursue this matter with a foregone “not guilty” conclusion.

The State of the Union address won’t exactly be on many people’s minds starting tomorrow when the nation (maybe) pauses to tune-in to see what an impeachment trial looks like. They’ll recognize at that moment that the country isn’t even close to being unified. And though every president starts his once-a-year SOTU by proclaiming “the state of our union is strong,” it definitely isn’t true this year… at least in a political sense.

If the trial does carry into Trump’s speech -- set for February 4, one day after the Iowa caucuses -- it will present one of the oddest and most awkward moments in American history. Trump will lay out his administration’s many accomplishments to a chamber half-filled with vengeance-seeking Democrats. He’ll receive applause and standing ovations from the Republican side and stony looks and silence from the other. That’s assuming they even show up. Pelosi delayed the SOTU last year -- the government shutdown, remember? -- who’s to say she won’t pull some other sort of stunt to try and embarrass Trump this year?

It won’t work. Americans have endured months of the same tired talking points. Before that it was the Mueller investigation, which was supposed to end in impeachment. When will it cease? Tea Party leader Jenny Beth Martin wrote at USA Today, “Democrats’ demand for witnesses who didn’t testify in the House is ludicrous. A majority of the House impeached the president based on the evidence that was presented. That’s the evidence that should be presented to the Senate — no more, no less. Why should the two chambers be working off different sets of facts?

“But if, for some strange reason, four Republicans fall for the Democrats’ insistence that new witnesses be heard from, then certainly, for fairness’ sake, President Trump’s team should be allowed to call the witnesses he was denied in the House. By all means, let’s hear from the whistleblower, and Hunter Biden, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Congressman Adam Schiff. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and all that.

“This entire episode is a sham, from start to finish. In the interests of fairness, the president should be acquitted — with new witnesses or without.”

Well put. And if Democrats (and a handful of RINO senators) insist on blowing the lid off the pressure cooker and call for new witnesses to testify, the spectacle will expand to epic proportions. No stone will be left unturned and the Bidens -- or at least two of them -- will have their moment before the questioners.  

Democrats can have it as dirty as they want with impeachment. If they insist on dragging the trial out, it will not only engulf Trump’s state of the union address, it will swamp their early state primaries as well. In the meantime, nothing will get accomplished and voters will be angry enough to vent come Election day. Bring it on.

Share this