Nancy Pelosi's Leadership

The CNN article Nancy Pelosi suggests subpoena power could be useful tool in negotiating with Trump contains the following paragraph:

"Subpoena power is interesting, to use it or not to use it," Pelosi told Dana Bash at the day-long CITIZEN Conference put on by CNN. "It's a great arrow to have in your quiver in terms of negotiating on other subjects."

While it's still a legal issue as to whether a sitting president can be subpoenaed, the threat is still there and would no doubt end up in front of the Supreme Court. The point is that Ms. Pelosi, if made Speaker of the House, intends to use the threat of subpoena to coerce President Trump during negotiations on various subjects. Negotiations are, and should be, part of politics. When politicians sit down and discuss one group giving up one portion of a bill in exchange for the other party giving up a different part of the bill extreme viewpoints from both sides can be weeded out and the bill becomes more center of the road.

This however is not negotiating, it's extortion. Ms Pelosi intends to use the threat of subpoena to coerce President Trump to make decisions he normally wouldn't make. In the article What is the difference between extortion and blackmail?, coercion is described as

Extortion is a form of theft that occurs when an offender obtains money, property, or services from another person through coercion.

Ms. Pelosi intention to force her will on the President could easily be argued to fall under this category. It it legal? Nope, Title 18 U.S. Code § 872 - Extortion by officers or employees of the United States states

Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

From the previous article on extortion, California law (the state Ms. Pelosi represents) considers the threat of extortion to be a felony punishable by up to 4 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. Ms. Pelosi could already be indicted under one of these statutes facing three to four years in prison.

I've said before that often when I am trying to decide how I feel about an issue I take it to the extreme, something along the lines of a "what if" game. In this case, "what if" Ms. Pelosi by some means garnered enough power over President Trump to effectively control the white house? In this case, the House of Representatives controls the presidency, clearly violating the separation of powers defined in Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution. Under this control Title 18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy states

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

The argument under federal law would center around the phrase "by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States" with the resolution of the argument centering around the word "force". The media has often used the phrase "constitutional crisis" with many of us (including me) unclear as to the meaning. An article on FiveThirtyEight.com, The 4 Types Of Constitutional Crises does a good job explaining the term. From the article, the fourth type of constitutional crisis is described as

The Constitution’s system of checks and balances sets the various branches against each other for the laudable purpose of constraining tyranny. However, due to partisan polarization, individual corruption, or any number of other reasons, sometimes the political institutions in these arrangements fail, sending the governmental system into a crisis.

Clearly, the House of Representatives controlling the Office of President would constitute a true constitutional crisis. Whether it's sedition or not is debatable.

What's really unclear to me is why she continues to be elected. Ms. Pelosi represents the 12th District of California, basically San Francisco. Ms. Pelosi has served the people of San Francisco for 30 years, one would think with the power she has accumulated over those 30 years would have enabled her to transform San Francisco into an idyllic city. The truth is, it isn't. San Francisco entertains 25 million visitors a year bringing in $25 billion annually. What these tourist think of San Francisco can be found in the articles Sickening problem with popular tourist city from Australia and SF tourist industry struggles to explain street misery to horrified visitors. These articles describe a once beautiful city whose streets now reek of the smell of urine and feces, feeling unsafe to walk the streets, of open drug usage, and where scooters are treated better than the homeless. The articles describe why recent tourist will never go back and recommend why others stay away. Hardly the kind of leadership that would constitute re-election. Supporters may say cleaning up the streets is a local government issue, does that mean she should stand by and not do what she can to protect her constituents?

If Democrats re-take control of the house, I can't imagine why they would re-elect Ms. Pelosi to her former leadership position. There still has to be some rational Democrats that oppose her, even if some oppose only behind closed doors. Ms. Pelosi's statement to CNN is an example of lawless leadership, she feels she can operate above the laws of extortion dealing with President Trump. If she is willing to take these measures against the president, what's she going to do to the average citizen?