The editors of the New York Times explain Nancy Pelosi’s decision to support an impeachment inquiry like this:
So was Ms. Pelosi’s announcement just empty political theater? All politics include an element of theater. But this was far from empty. However this process plays out, the public unveiling of an impeachment inquiry sends important signals to multiple audiences.
The message for Mr. Trump is the most straightforward: Enough. After months of watching the president ravage democratic norms and taunt lawmakers about their inability to hold him accountable, Congress is making clear that there are lines that cannot be crossed without repercussion.
The American public needs to hear this as well. Amid the clamor of Mr. Trump’s perpetual outrages, Tuesday’s announcement signals: This moment is different. Pay attention. There are constitutional and national security issues at stake.
Mr. Trump has long argued — and continues to argue — that impeachment will benefit him politically. Many Democrats, including Ms. Pelosi, have not disputed that possibility. Pressing ahead with the proceedings despite such political uncertainty conveys Democratic leaders believe matters have reached the point where the costs of inaction are simply too high.
If you want to send a message, use Western Union. The action sends other messages as well, for example, that all this Democratic House can do is impeach. That Nancy Pelosi values her job as Speaker more than the good of the party.
Here’s a prospect for you. Having been impeached by the House and removed by the Senate is not a barrier to seeking the presidency.
yep, the case of Alcee Hastings, impeached federal judge, now Congressman and senior whip for the House Democrats comes to mind.
The NYTs editorial is tripe. But having reviewed the most recent commentary I would humbly suggest that anyone interested in facts and context rather than partisan jousting read J Solomon’s pieces. Perhaps to the exclusion of all others. He’s got the goods here, and in a strong indication he’s directly over the target the impeachment crowd is starting to characterize him as an administration lackey.
But he’s no fool. I knew he had documents and affidavits. But only this morning did I learn he has tapes of interviews. He’s willing to put it all out there unlike the uninformed and the lying thieves orchestrating this BS. And there are plenty of out and out lies being peddled under cover of media bias.
But where does it all go? It’s clear at this point Joe Biden was deep into pay to play for the benefit of his son. Obama probably was aware, but at arms length. And second, the Russian hoax ran straight through Ukraine. That’s why Trump requested them to look into Crowdstrike. The 2016 election, not subsequent events. So Joe is probably dead meat as collateral damage. Obama will skate. Too tangential. And the whole Russian operation could be blown wide open. That’s why the Dems and media will go absolutely to the mat over this. They can’t have election rigging on the investigative agenda. Because that’s HRC, Obama and a whole host of others. We don’t know what Durham has so far, but the horse may be out of the barn.
All good points, Drew. I’ve been reading John Solomon’s informational pieces for some time. He seems like a serious straight shooter who doesn’t aggrandize the content of his pieces with hyperbole. Nor, does he do what so many supposed “journalists†do in submitting unverified stories, over-use anonymous sources, and/or omit content that doesn’t fit the narrative they want their readership to be exposed to (omission being equivalent to lying).
In fact, accurate and unbiased investigative reporting has become an almost extinct factor in the news business today. I find this to be the most troubling aspect in trying to ferret out what is real and what is false. Furthermore, once a news report is printed, even when based on egregious lies, it sticks like a leech to the public’s consciousness. How do you undo the harm? What kind of tools can one use to excavate the truth in a way that will serve the public’s critical thinking, giving them real facts in order to reason out justified conclusions?