BloggeRhythms

Yesterday, Michael Goodwin once again has taken blockbuster news and put it into rational perspective in his article @nypost.com titled: “Pelosi’s impeachment flip-flop changes everything.”

The article focuses on the facts in the case, explaining potential ramifications for both sides involved. Yet, it occurred to this writer that there may be another objective altogether for Pelosi’s actions. Because it seems quite possible that she may now see an opportunity to quell, control or perhaps even eliminate the disastrous far left segment of her party. 

Mr. Goodwin believes that “Because of what (Pelosi) she said and did, if the House doesn’t go all the way, it will be a political disaster. Either failing to take a vote on articles of impeachment, or failing to get enough votes among her majority to pass any articles, would be seen as a political exoneration for Trump, likely leading to his re-election.”

Furthermore, according to Mr. Goodwin: “they could win the battle and lose the war,“ because “no matter what the House does, there is a next-to-zero chance the GOP controlled Senate would convict the president absent clear and convincing “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

“Pelosi knew all that since January, when she became Speaker, which is why she kept resisting the impeachers. But her surrender proved again that her party can’t quit 2016. Like generals fighting the last war, she and they are now committed to taking their sore-loser grievances to 2020 voters. Yet she did something else, too, something far more monumental: She effectively committed House Dems to impeaching President Trump.

“Pelosi may think she went only halfway Tuesday and could eventually back down on impeachment if the Ukraine issue fizzles, but that’s wishful thinking. Anything less than a public flogging of Trump will not satisfy the far left of her own party, including the 150 or so House members who already demanded impeachment before the Ukraine issue appeared.”

Thus, Mr. Goodwin now believes: “In short, Pelosi just changed everything. The next election is now about impeachment.”

From there, Mr. Goodwin goes on to surmise the possibility that not only might the POTUS very well gain from the situation Pelosi created, but that: “Ironically, a full examination of the facts could make Biden the first casualty of the impeachment jihad. He is already a weak front-runner and even if he did nothing legally wrong in dealing with Ukraine, the fact that his son was enriching himself by free-riding on the coattails of his father’s job won’t sit well with progressive voters, many of whom already dislike and distrust Biden.” 

“Trump admits he asked Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, over whether the then-vice president took any action to protect his son from a corruption probe.

“Hunter Biden was being paid $50,000 a month by an energy company that was at one time the focus of a corruption inquiry. Reports have said Biden used his VP position to demand that the inquiry be dropped and the prosecutor involved fired, or America would withhold aid.

“Put it this way: Would Hunter Biden have gotten that job if his father were not vice president? Ditto for a sweetheart investment deal Hunter Biden got from the Chinese government. On at least one occasion, he reportedly flew with his father on Air Force Two to China to seal a lucrative agreement there.

“That doesn’t pass the smell test and Biden could get knocked down and even out as events unfold.

“Count that possibility as another sign that, based on what we know, Pelosi is making a high-risk, low-reward bet.”

Which brings us back to this writer’s quite strong suspicion that Pelosi, a consummate, seasoned well-attuned politician might very well see the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. First by “assisting” in the hard-core left faction of her party’s being weakened, discredited and defanged once again by the POTUS as she simultaneously stands by as a hapless front-runner (Biden) self destructs. 

That’s it for today folks.

Adios