Friday, January 10, 2020
Pelosi's defenders are running out of arguments. Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin now says that acting on the Clinton precedent means that moderate Republican senators such as Susan Collins "will face the real possibility that conclusive evidence of Trump's wrongdoing will come to light after a sham trial. That would make for a disastrous, humiliating legacy."
The gaping hole in this argument, and the reason Democrats are losing the debate, is that they've already claimed to have conclusive evidence of Trump's wrongdoing. They claimed they had proof of bribery, but they didn't include it in the impeachment articles. They claimed to have proof in the Mueller Report that Trump obstructed justice, yet it's not in the article of impeachments either. Rubin herself has alleged, dozens of times, that we already have definitive proof Trump has committed an impeachable offense.
In truth, if the House had made a persuasive case, there would be public pressure on Republicans to act in a different manner. That the House did not is the only reason Pelosi embraced John Dean's silly idea -- which has drastically backfired.
I'm beginning to doubt Mark Shield's judgment that Pelosi is a tactical genius.