共和党战略家、前乔治·布什总统高级顾问卡尔·罗夫(Karl Rove)周二晚间撰写了一篇令人沮丧的专栏文章，指责众议院议长南希·佩洛西“冒险进入危险的宪法领域”，拒绝在美国参议院发表弹劾唐纳德·特朗普总统的文章。
“佩洛西试图阻止诉讼进行，除非麦康奈尔默许她要求更多证人和文件，这是试图侵犯参议院的宪法特权，并在审判中为自己创造一个创始人无意的角色，”罗夫写道在华尔街日报。
佩洛西表示，民主党人需要了解参议院多数党领袖米奇·麦康奈尔(Mitch McConnell)计划如何在移交条款之前对总统进行上院审判，这类似于刑事诉讼中的起诉。
民主党人希望得到保证，他们能够传唤关键证人，但麦康奈尔断然拒绝，将他的过程比作1999年比尔·克林顿总统被弹劾期间参议院采取的过程。
罗夫在他的专栏中回应了这种比较，他说美国人民“应该得到一个体面的弹劾结论，就像参议院给他们的与克林顿先生的一样。”
“弹劾总是给国家造成创伤。我们可以接受，”他写道。"这个国家不应该接受的是这个民主党领导的马戏团的延续."
佩洛西的发言人没有立即回复置评请求。
尽管与克林顿的相似之处显而易见——特朗普是众议院弹劾的三位总统之一——但当前的程序由于几个关键原因而无法直接比较。
第一个也是最值得注意的一个是，弹劾前后的公众情绪不同于1998年10月，也就是克林顿被弹劾前的几个月。
根据盖洛普的历史调查，当时只有32%的美国人认为他应该被弹劾和免职。相比之下，46%的美国人支持特朗普的弹劾和罢免。尽管仍是少数，但这比人们对克林顿弹劾程序的态度有了实质性的提高，在弹劾程序中，核心证人被罢免。此外，据盖洛普称，就在2019年10月，大多数美国人支持弹劾和罢免特朗普。
本案不同于过去弹劾的另一个值得注意的方式是，这些文章基于特朗普参与乌克兰事务，涉及国家安全和阻碍国会的问题，而克林顿则涉及伪证和妨碍司法公正。
罗夫还断言，通过拒绝发表文章，佩洛西已经推翻了弹劾特朗普是一个紧迫问题的说法。
在上周的一次新闻发布会上，佩洛西解释了她在转移条款上的犹豫，称在起草宪法弹劾条款时，创始人并没有设想一个“同时在参议院的流氓领导人”作为总统，他的行为正受到众议院的审查。
FORMER BUSH ADVISER SAYS NANCY PELOSI IS 'VENTURING INTO TREACHEROUS CONSTITUTIONAL TERRITORY' WITH IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES
Karl Rove, a Republican strategist and former senior adviser to President George W. Bush, penned a withering op-ed Tuesday evening accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of "venturing into treacherous constitutional territory" by withholding the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump from the U.S. Senate.
"By attempting to prevent the process from proceeding unless Mr. McConnell acquiesces to her demands for additional witnesses and documents, Mrs. Pelosi is attempting to intrude on the Senate's constitutional prerogatives and create a role for herself in the trial that the Founders didn't intend," Rove wrote in the Wall Street Journal.
Pelosi has said that Democrats would need to understand how Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plans to conduct the Upper Chamber's trial of the president before handing over the articles, which are analogous to the indictments in criminal prosecutions.
Democrats want guarantees that they will be able to call key witnesses, which McConnell has rebuffed, likening his process to one undertaken by the Senate during President Bill Clinton's impeachment in 1999.
Rove echoed that comparison in his op-ed, saying that the American people "deserve a dignified conclusion to impeachment, as the Senate gave them with Mr. Clinton."
"Impeachment always inflicts trauma on the nation. We can accept that," he wrote. "What the country shouldn't accept is a continuation of this Democrat-led circus."
A spokesperson for Pelosi did not immediately return a request for comment.
While the analogy to Clinton is obvious—Trump is one of just three presidents to be impeached by the House of Representatives—the current proceedings defy direct comparison for a few key reasons.
The first and most notable one is that public sentiment around impeachment is different from what it was in October 1998, just months before Clinton was impeached.
At that time, just 32 percent of Americans thought he deserved to be impeached and removed from office, according to historical Gallup surveys. By contrast, 46 percent of Americans endorsed Trump's impeachment and removal. While still a minority, this is a substantial increase over attitudes towards Clinton's impeachment proceedings, during which central witnesses were deposed. Moreover, as recently as October 2019, a majority of Americans favored Trump's impeachment and removal, according to Gallup.
Another notable way in which the present case departs from impeachments past is that the articles, based on Trump's involvement in the Ukraine affair, deal with matters of national security and obstruction of Congress, while Clinton's dealt with perjury and obstruction of justice.
Rove also asserted that by withholding the articles, Pelosi has discredited the argument that Trump's impeachment is an urgent matter.
At a press conference last week, Pelosi explained her hesitancy to transfer the articles, arguing that, in drafting the Constitution's impeachment clauses, the founders did not envision a "rogue Leader in the Senate at the same time" as a president whose conduct was being scrutinized by the House.
