Nancy Pelosi, the former House Speaker, is once again in the spotlight as she hints at the possibility of a third impeachment for Donald Trump. Her recent remarks on “The Excerpt” podcast show that little has changed in her long-standing disdain for the former president. This isn’t just political rhetoric; it suggests a deeper strategy for the Democrats should they reclaim the House in the 2026 midterms.
During her interview with Susan Page, Pelosi claimed, “The person most responsible for impeaching President Trump when I was speaker was President Trump.” This statement reflects her view that Trump himself provided the justification for the previous impeachments. It sounds almost absurd when considering the context; memories of past controversies over his interactions with Ukraine and the Capitol riots come flooding back.
Pelosi’s insistence on rehashing Trump’s alleged misdeeds signals that she is prepared to pull the impeachment lever again. However, her rhetoric also exposes the political theater surrounding impeachment. The first impeachment, based on Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, has faded into obscurity for most voters. “It’s a good bet that nine out of 10 Americans probably couldn’t explain it today,” notes the article, underscoring the disconnect between political battles and public sentiment.
The second impeachment — directly tied to the Capitol events of January 6, 2021 — was memorable because it captivated the nation. Yet, the article argues that it was also a politically motivated maneuver, attempting to harness the chaos of the day for electoral gains. Pelosi’s remarks on the podcast indicate a desire to frame any future impeachment as a “last-resort, hair-on-fire, save-the-republic necessity,” but the history of impeachments reveals a laundry list of political motivations, overshadowing their original gravitas.
She goes on to say, “There has to be cause. There has to be reason,” framing tantalizing possibilities for the future while avoiding a direct commitment to act. This insistence on careful deliberation ironically contrasts with past actions from her party, where impeachments seemed more like actions of political convenience. The article suggests that had Pelosi been more candid like Rep. Rashida Tlaib — who famously declared, “We’re going to impeach the motherf***er” right after her swearing-in — it might have lent her more credibility.
The historical references throughout the article deepen the critique of impeachment as a political tool. The piece reminds readers that the process has been employed sparingly in American history, with significant implications when it has been used. Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon faced serious allegations that warranted removal, whereas the Trump impeachments were marred by a more partisan lens, pointedly critiqued as “farces.”
Ultimately, the article suggests that Pelosi’s considerations are not as noble as she purports them to be. Political projects can shape the narrative, and if Democrats regain power, another impeachment is highly likely, despite her claims of necessity. As she fades from the political stage, her ambitions linger, and the specter of another impeachment looms large, proving that the game of politics is far from over.
In closing, while Pelosi claims to approach potential impeachment with caution, history shows that political motivations can often override the principles she cites. The narrative surrounding her remarks serves as a reminder of the contentious ground in which American politics finds itself. Whether or not she plays a role, the implications of her comments underscore a continuing cycle of political maneuvering that will likely persist as long as Trump remains a figure of contention.
"*" indicates required fields
