CommentsONE MAN’S OPINION-Dems do not want to admit that Nancy Pelosi’s personal ambitions make her opposed to Trump being removed from office. Her political power rests on the Dems needing her blessings (spell that M-O-N-E-Y) to run for the House. Pelosi’s fundraising rests on Trump’s atrocious behavior.
Her office announced that in 2019, she raised over $87 million. “[Pelosi’s] record figure represents a $37.6 million increase from the $49.5 million she raised in 2017, it noted, adding that the fundraising haul included $75 million raised directly for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.”
If Trump is removed from office, Pelosi’s fundraising will dramatically drop, and her power will fall into the basement. Since Trump was elected in November 2016, the Dems have had no viable campaign issue other than him. If the GOP should turn on Trump and oust him from office, taciturn Mike Pence becomes President. It is extremely unlikely Pence will send out as many tweets in the next 10 months as Trump gushes forth in a single day.
Trump’s Removal is Political Disaster for Pelosi
There’s no gainsaying that Trump’s departure would be a devastating political blow to Pelosi. Not only would her fundraising drop to nil, but the Dems will have no deep new political issue to tout. The GOP can play the somewhat schizophrenic role as both the true Americans who did their constitutional duty to convict while railing against the Dems who hounded a wildly popular Trump from office. (We know political campaigns play to emotions and not to logical consistency.)
Pelosi’s Objective to Sabotage the Impeachment
Pelosi had one option for clinging to her personal power – sabotage the House impeachment while seeming to go along with it. Just as Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Ave and get away with it, Pelosi knew she could shoot down the impeachment effort and get away with it. A political base is filled with True Believers for whom truth is whatever their leader says is true. Besides, who would dare call the vindictive empress on her double dealings?
The Pivotal Question in Any Impeachment: “What Did the President Know/Do, and When Did He Know/Do It.”
With Trump, the question is in two parts: (1) Did Trump know his Biden and Crowd Strike stories were false? (2) What did Trump do with that information?
The brilliant witnesses in the first round of House public hearings in front of Rep. Adam Schiff’s Intel Committee were amazing. Except for what one witness overheard of a snippet of a phone call, however, none had direct knowledge from Trump’s lips. A prosecution case begins with these types of witnesses to provide the foundation for later witnesses.
Laypeople most likely do not realize that in legal hearings, there must be a foundation for evidence to be introduced. Sometimes the foundation is required, such as when introducing a document. Other times, earlier witnesses provide facts as a foundation for later witnesses. For example, House witnesses who know Crowd Strike was a false story should be called before people may refer to the Crowd Strike story as false.
The other reason for a foundation is proper storytelling. Prior to testimony about the President’s knowledge, it is sensible to establish that Crowd Strike was a false story emanating from Russia. The same with the Biden story. Logic requires that the testimony first establish that it had been shown that Joe Biden had done nothing wrong and Trump had no credible data to believe that Joe Biden had done anything improper.
In a criminal trial and in an impeachment, the jurors want to see video or hear recordings of the defendant. Lacking video or audio recordings, they want credible witnesses to testify from personal knowledge of what Trump knew and what he did with the information. The first round of House witnesses could only lay a foundation for subsequent insider witnesses with first-hand info about what Trump knew and did.
The House Impeachment Hearings Knew Key Witnesses Existed
IN my November 25, 2019 CityWatch article, “How Impeachment Actually Works,” I pointed out that Three Fat Ladies who had first-hand information had yet to sing. Thus, the House should not stop the testimony until these three were questioned: John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Pompeo.
Nancy Pelosi protected Trump and her own personal power by closing down the evidence gathering before the House evidence actually touched Trump. What people believe is not evidence. Strong first-hand evidence by credible people who would testify to what Trump knew and what Trump did could not be properly excluded. Yet, Pelosi excluded it.
John Bolton has First-Hand Evidence What Trump Knew and What Trump Did
The entire world has now heard John Bolton say that he has crucial evidence. What will Pelosi and the GOP do? Under the Constitution, the “sole power” has passed from Pelosi to the Senate. Will the Senate GOP follow Pelosi’s lead and exclude John Bolton’s testimony?
(Richard Lee Abrams is a Los Angeles attorney and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Abrams views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.