Democrats' impeachment dealings reach for the absurd

When I watch the impeachment drama unfold, all I can think of is how the left is never going to stop. If Russia collusion isn't going to work, try Ukraine collusion. If secret hearings and leaks aren't going to work, do public hearings, after sufficiently gagging any Republican opposition of course. If collusion doesn't work, try quid pro quo. If quid pro quo doesn't work, try bribery. If bribery doesn't work, try obstruction of Congress. If witness A doesn't work, get witness B. It's not over until the Democrat wins. 

Which is why the latest stunt from the Democrats is their howlings about the "fairness" of the Senate trial, and their refusal to send their mess of a bill over to Cocaine Mitch at the Senate for dispatch. The never-gonna-stop factor now is that they want a second impeachment. And who knows, a third. One, two, many impeachments... Which is why they are now yelling about forcing former White House lawyer Don McGahn to testify, something they didn't bother with in their first impeachment, but now they'd like another.

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line has a different take beyond just 'they don't stop,' though. He sees farce, the real kind. He has a brilliant lawyer's perspective on just how absurd the whole impeachment drama has become as Democrats demand the Senate call witnesses such as McGahn, whom they couldn't be bothered to call. He writes:

Pelosi’s rationale was astounding. The Senate needs to hear more evidence than the House bothered to collect to adjudicate the case for removing President Trump.

I have assumed that Pelosi was bluffing, albeit with an exposed hand consisting of a queen high (or maybe a high queen). Surely she simply hopes to leverage Trump’s expressed desire for a trial into a few procedural concessions.

But if we take Pelosi’s statements at face value, the farce is heightened by the position House Democrats are taking in court — i.e., that they need testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn in order to determine whether to bring new articles of impeachment.

One response might be that if the House could pass two articles of impeachment without what it claims is key evidence, why can’t it pass additional articles impeachment without McGahn’s testimony? Another response might be that if the House isn’t willing to prosecute the articles of impeachment it has already passed, why should a court enable it to pass additional articles to NOT prosecute.

They're really started to look like idiots here, a veritable clown car of illogic, effectively demanding that Republicans clean up their messes of their own making and deliver the result Democrats themselves couldn't deliver.

It's full of swift, sharp-witted insights for looking at how this impeachment drama is rapidly making Democrats into legal laughingstocks. Read the whole thing here.


If you experience technical problems, please write to