Pundit: ‘President Trump did not get impeached Wednesday night’

Last Thursday, the front page of The New York Times was emblazoned with a massive headline that read simply: “Trump Impeached.” But in a column published by Breitbart and The Washington Times on Saturday, political analyst Charles Hurt took exception to that claim.

“First and foremost, President Trump did not get impeached Wednesday night,” Hurt wrote, a reversal from what many pundits on the left have argued. He went on to call The New York Times‘ headline “completely false.”

“Fake News, you might say,” he added.

“Tell a big lie”

According to Hurt, Trump hasn’t been impeached until Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) delivers the House’s recently passed articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate — something the House speaker has failed to do to this point. Pelosi also hasn’t indicated when she plans to do so, something Hurt finds very curious.

“Just days ago, Democrats in Congress were demanding that they rush through impeachment charges because President Trump is such a dire and immediate threat to the Republic that they could not allow him to remain one minute more,” Hurt noted. “Then Mrs. Pelosi suddenly decides not to submit the articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate.”

But while the disingenuousness may seem comical, Hurt raised serious concerns that Pelosi may be “plotting a sneak attack that is much, much larger than just impeaching a president.”

“I mean, if you are going to tell a lie, tell a big lie,” Hurt wrote Saturday. “If you have a losing hand and you have no choice but to gamble, go ahead and gamble everything.”

Pelosi’s “crazy base”

Hurt suggested that the House speaker may be trying to emulate Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vis-à-vis Merrick Garland.

“Judge Garland, of course, was nominated by President Barack Obama to replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in the final year of Mr. Obama’s presidency,” Hurt explained. He went on:

Being the shrewd tactician he is, Mr. McConnell turned a grave threat into a sterling opportunity. By refusing to hold hearings on Mr. Garland and keeping Justice Scalia’s seat vacant, he created a powerful political incentive for conservatives and Republicans to show up at the polls in 2016.

Now, Hurt wonders if Pelosi will “simply keep the impeachment articles burning hot inside her purse into next year’s elections” in hopes of energizing “her crazy base.”

The Animal House Impeachment

But there’s at least one group who won’t be impressed with that strategy, Hurt notes: “the independent voters who will determine the outcome of the next election,” people who regard “this whole circus as the Animal House Impeachment.”

Indeed, everyday Americans — those who aren’t blinded by Democrats’ incessant talking points — see right through the left’s attempts to undo the 2016 election. But according to Hurt, Trump isn’t even really impeached yet — and he won’t be until Pelosi does her job.

“A prosecutor can draw up all the indictments against all the ham sandwiches he wants,” he wrote. “But until he hands that indictment to the judge — files the indictment with the court — no ham sandwiches are indicted.”

Share on facebook
Share To Facebook