ANALYSIS/OPINION:

For months, we have listened to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insist that this whole “formal impeachment inquiry” in search of a “high crime” did not require a vote by the full House of Representatives. Until, apparently, it does.

Never mind.

It is worth noting that previously there have been three (3) votes by the full House on impeaching President Trump. Each failed miserably, losing lopsided and bipartisan votes.

Never mind again.

Now comes Mrs. Pelosi forcing a vote by the full House on a formal impeachment inquiry. It passed by brute majority, 232-196.

While technically a “win” for Democrats, Thursday’s vote falls disastrously short of Mrs. Pelosi’s insistence for the past two years that any impeachment effort be bipartisan. The only thing that was “bipartisan” out of the House vote were the “nays” to halt this impeachment nonsense, which included every House Republican along with two Democrats.

Again, never mind.

That is why Thursday’s vote on impeachment says everything about Mrs. Pelosi’s speakership and nothing about Mr. Trump’s presidency.

This is Nancy Pelosi’s Waterloo, and she knows it.

Pelosi Bonaparte has desperately tried to throttle down the impeachment freight train that the crazies in her party have been frothing about since Election Day 2016.

Not because she likes Mr. Trump or wants him to be president, but because she is a smart enough politician to know that impeachment will fail to remove the president and could very well cost Democrats control of the House — not to mention assure Mr. Trump’s reelection.

In that case, Pelosi Bonaparte still goes down in history as the nation’s first female House speaker, but she also goes down as the first female House speaker to lose her majority — twice.

Thursday’s vote is final proof that she has surrendered and allowed the inmates to take over the asylum.

Among those voting who clearly understands what Pelosi Bonaparte also understands is Rep. Collin Peterson, the longtime Minnesota Democrat who represents a district that voted for Mr. Trump by 30 percentage points in 2016.

In 1998, when the House voted to launch impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, Mr. Peterson voted in favor of proceeding, though he would later vote against actually impeaching the president.

What does it say that a guy like Mr. Peterson saw a case at least worth pursuing against the president of his own party back in 1998, yet he doesn’t see such a case worth pursuing against the president of his opposing party today?

It tells us that, like Pelosi Bonaparte, he knows Waterloo when he sees it.

⦁ Contact Charles Hurt at [email protected]mes.com or on Twitter @charleshurt.

Sign up for Charles Hurt's Newsletter Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.