In a previous post I shared my theory of why the Democratic Party US House Speaker Pelosi has been resisting honoring the House’s constitutionally mandated directive, to commence an impeachment inquiry against the republican President Donald Trump for his numerous crimes, as detailed in the FBI’s 3/22/2019 final report regarding its Trump-Russia probe led by the Special Counsel Robert Mueller III.
Based on the FBI’s Mueller report, over 1000 federal prosecutors on a bi-partisan basis, have signed a public declaration during June 2019, explaining to the public, that if Donald Trump weren’t president, he would’ve been criminally indicted. There’s s Department of Justice rule which blocks a US sitting president from being criminally indicted. As of 2019-2020, there’s only one government entity which has been granted the power by the US Constitution to hold President Trump accountable for his felonious acts and It’s the US House of Representatives.
See: lawfareblog.com/ Full Text of the Mueller Report’s Executive Summaries…
Now, it seems that others are on the same page regarding my theory. On June 18, 2019, the Bulwark published a similar theory.
My version of Speaker Pelosi’s point of view…
From Speaker Pelosi’s point of view, there’re about 41 House democrats who’d feel vulnerable if Speaker Pelosi gave her approval for the start of an impeachment inquiry because they won in Trump leaning districts. Even if she gave a pass to some Democrats to vote against an impeachment inquiry, she’d need about 23 out of the 41 to vote in favor with the one GOP Rep. Justin Amash to equal the 218 required votes.
Speaker Pelosi has figured out that there’s a real risk to not playing her hand well, as Democrats could lose their majority position in House in 2020, because in those Trump leaning districts, Democrats can’t count solely on its base to win. They also require votes from independent and republicans, and while most Democrats favor impeachment, most Independent and Republican Party voters, don’t.
By now Speaker Pelosi has figured out that because of the voluminous amount of alleged misconduct by President Trump and his administration that an impeachment inquiry would last at least one year. This means that if she’s forced to cave into the demand for the House to begin a formal impeachment inquiry because of all the delays in gathering evidence due to the White House’s obstructionist measures, she’d want to time its start towards the end of September 2019. The hearings would still being on-going when 2020 elections are held, but meanwhile, the public would become fully informed as to why impeachment was necessary. It’s crucial to send a message to the world that the US stands for the ‘rule of law’ where no one is above the law.
Once the formality of an impeachment inquiry has been commenced by the House, it would be only the Judiciary Committee which would be overseeing all the investigative projects and hearings. With all the roadblocks the White House has been deploying to run out the clock until after the 2020 elections, there’s no way its work will be close to being a fait accompli before the 2020 elections.
See: Speaker Pelosi Has To Start An House Impeachment Inquiry No Later Than September 2019
See: Democrat Rep. Katie Porter Who Has Been Taking Washington D.C. By Storm, Now Favors I Word
Here’s the rest of the story…
On June 19, 2019, Philip Rotner of the Bulwark penned the following report, “How to Impeach Donald Trump” (“The Republican Senate won’t do it. The Democratic House won’t do it. But there is a way, if Nancy Pelosi wants to do it.”)
“Why is Nancy Pelosi slow-walking impeachment?”
“Is it because she thinks impeachment would be too divisive? That there’s insufficient public support? That the virtual guarantee that the Republican Senate would not convict makes it a lost cause not worth pursuing?”
“These are the obvious considerations and certainly all of them are at play in her thinking. But there’s another consideration which seems to have escaped the notice of most observers.”
“It’s the House.”
“You don’t have to be the speaker to know that the votes aren’t there. Just take a look at the New York Times’running total on where House Democrats stand on impeachment: There are 235 Democrats in the House, more than enough to impeach if all of them were on board. But they aren’t.”
“Just over 60 (65) of the 235 unequivocally support launching an impeachment inquiry. Approximately twice that number are either against or undecided. Another 100 or so have ducked responding to the Times inquiry.”
“Which means that if only 18 of the publicly undecided Democrats (or of the 100 Democrats who haven’t yet weighed in) were to vote against impeachment, it would fail.”
“And that would be a disaster.”
“A failed impeachment vote in the Democratic House would be far worse than a failed conviction in the Republican Senate.”
“Which means that it’s not just a Senate vote that needs to be avoided. It’s a House vote.”
“I suspect that the prospect of losing a vote in the House is precisely what is behind Nancy Pelosi’s slow-walk on impeachment. Nobody is better at counting votes than Pelosi. Nobody is more pragmatic than Pelosi. She’s not going to lead her caucus off a cliff.”
“But avoiding an impeachment vote doesn’t necessarily require avoiding an impeachment inquiry.”
“So why is Pelosi opposed even to that?”
“I suspect that the answer for the pragmatic Pelosi has more to do with timing than anything.”
“It’s too soon.”
“How long can House Democrats string along an impeachment inquiry that by necessity can’t end in an actual vote? How long until the public gets sick of it, and turns on the Democrats for running a pointless, never-ending political show? Right now the election is almost a year and a half away. That’s too long.”
“The alternative is to run a stealthy, undeclared impeachment process. Call it an investigation, call it oversight, call it anything you want—but don’t call it impeachment. In fact, make a big show of being against impeachment because it’d be so divisive, and such an obstacle to the House doing its real job of work for the American people. And while you’re doing that, call witnesses, force Trump to stonewall, and win one court battle after another.”
Then wait until the presidential campaign is in full swing—when it’s too late to get to an impeachment vote—and announce that the president has left you no choice but to start a formal impeachment inquiry: We might not be able to remove, or even impeach him, but we owe a duty to the Constitution and to future generations not to turn a blind eye to his misconduct.
“Right up to the election.”
Sigh. Rule of law in the United States is, for all intents and purposes, dead. If Trump is above the law, and he obviously is, then there can be no law. If I were to be pulled over for speeding tomorrow, I would laugh in the officer’s face and drive off, for if Trump cannot be forced to follow the law, then neither can I. I’m sick and tired of it all. As far as I can see, there is but one way to remove this man and restore some semblance of order to this nation before he is give the chance to start World War III in the Middle East, and I hope somebody heeds the call soon.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gronda, I received one of those fundraising envelopes from the RNC which summarizes how it is this evil Democrats who are causing all of these problems. I sent them another note highlighting the position of Republicans for the Rule of Law, reinforcing the courage and merit of GOP Congressman Justin Amash and concluding with the 1,000+ former federal prosecutors who feel obstruction occurred and the president needs to be held accountable.
This is not just a Democrat or Republican issue, it is an American one. When will the GOP act? What else do they need to see? The US president is a “clear and present danger” to our democracy, our planet and the GOP. I do not say this lightly or without study. We are a Republic, not a kinddom.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hello Gronda. I think there has been a slight misreading of the uncommitted or independent voters. I think there are basically three types of voters. Those who will vote for tRump no matter what, the cult of tRump. Those so turned off by what he has done they will never vote for him, the democrats. The last group is the ones on the fence about if they will vote for tRump or not. Well let’s talk about that group. See I don’t think it is so cut and dried. I think they may not vote for a Democrat but also won’t vote for tRump anyway, they will simply not vote. If that happens the Democrats still win. I doubt their willingness to vote for or against tRump ahs much to do with impeachment. I think they need to be given a reason to simply come out and vote for the democrats. Look these Democrats that won in swing districts, and some in even red districts, did not win because the people loved Democrats. They won because those people were turned off by tRump. Now regardless of what the Democrats do tRump is not going to improve or grow on them, so they still won’t vote for him. They won’t like him anymore in the future than they already do now. So the Democrats won’t lose support by not showing the criminal actions of tRump but they will lose support if they do not try to hold tRump accountable as they promised to do in 2018. Hugs
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comments are closed.