The unprecedented act that Democrats claim is not, and vice versa

Comment:

This is a partial video and is near the end of the show; in which Bongino shows a segment of video with Chis Wallace interviewing Val Demmings (D) of Florida.  Actually, the part with Demmings is a bit earlier than where I am linking.  ( Bongino starts the segment about Demmings at about the 50-minute mark. )

There are those who may have seen this on the Fox news show with Wallace.  This part may not be news then.

Demmings claims that it would be unprecedented if they had a full House vote, but Wallace corrects her.  She was wrong.

What does this mean?  Simple.  It is one of two possibilities.  One: is that Demings is too stupid to know the CONUS ( constitution of the US).   Or two, she is lying through her teeth.  It may be that Demmings is really stupid, and Bongino is giving her the credit of not being a liar, but that she is "confused".  But I tell you what.  SOMEBODY has to be lying here.

Who is lying?  Well, the people who should know better.  That would be Pelosi.  Pelosi changed some rules early in the term when the Democrats just took over from the GOP, which came as a consequence of winning the election in 2018, as you may recall.  Pelosi changed the rules that would not allow the GOP to have a vote until the articles of impeachment are voted on.

What the deal is here is that Pelosi is running an impeachment ATTEMPT without the benefit of a formal inquiry, which, according to two precedents, requires a vote.  Therefore, Pelosi's gambit is totally arbitrary.  In order to claim that they don't have to have a formal inquiry, which does not happen without the vote first, is what is unprecedented.  But they have to lie and say that it isn't.

This is the sleight of hand that the Dems are trying to pull off.  It remains to be seen if they can succeed in what is a totally arbitrary and partisan proceeding.