Several Democrats and a veritable ocean of left-wing pundits were confused, hurt, and angry this week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appeared to rule out the idea of impeaching President Donald Trump. In off-hand remarks to a reporter as she was getting out of an elevator on Monday, Pelosi suggested that impeachment was not a path she was interested in traveling.
“I’m not for impeachment,” she said. “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country.”
You’ll notice that there is a significant “unless” in Pelosi’s remarks, but it was apparently missed by Washington Post political writer Greg Sargent. He was miffed about Pelosi closing the door to impeachment, because he apparently thinks that House Democrats should move forward with charges even if there isn’t anything “compelling, overwhelming, and bipartisan.”
Along the way, though, Sargent makes it perfectly clear that he didn’t miss the “unless” part at all, and he concedes that Pelosi is leaving the door wide open for impeachment in the future. So it’s awfully strange that he would write a column pushing back against the House Speaker at all, unless he finds it morally objectionable for the Democrats to even pretend to care about the facts.
Sargent seems particularly put off by the idea of waiting until there is evidence that might convince those nasty, evil Republicans that Trump needs to be impeached.
“This framing does not reckon with an important pathology of our political moment — the enormous propaganda apparatus behind Trump that is already bombarding Republican voters with disinformation painting all inquiry as illegitimate, likely ensuring they will never support any inquiry,” Sargent writes. “Democrats must weigh whether this disinformation machine should be able to place an inquiry off political limits even if they conclude the emerging facts warrant it.”
It’s almost too painful for words to hear a liberal talk about the right’s “propaganda apparatus,” particularly when we have to hear about it from a Washington Post writer. Be that as it may, the only other alternative is for Democrats to put on a show trial in the House with the full knowledge that impeachment will be defeated in the Senate. That would not be a move to “save the Republic,” as some Democrats have intimated, it would only be more grist for the liberal media mill. It would, in essence, be the Democrats using their majority in the House as a campaign platform and not a serious arena for governing.
We never thought we’d be defending Nancy Pelosi, but she seems to at least understand that screaming hordes of rabid #Resistance writers do not an impeachment make. At least publicly (and at least for now), she seems to hold on to the quaint belief that elections actually matter and that Democrats should win one if they want to take control of the White House. Guess that’s not what the “Trump is a Nazi” crowd wants to hear.