We don’t see as much of Nancy Pelosi as we used to. And that’s a good thing, because it means she’s no longer speaker of the House, nor in any leadership position for the Democrats.

Still, she shows up periodically, usually to field softballs from hard-left journos, as was the case recently when she spoke with former Biden White House press secretary and current MSNBC host Jen Psaki about the Republicans’ impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden.

“Well, the fact is, they have no goods,” Pelosi told Psaki, echoing a refrain of denialist Democrats about the ostensible paucity of evidence for even an impeachment inquiry. “They’ve been, for months and months and months, trying to make some kind of a charge. The, I don’t think they’ll ever bring it to the floor. They don’t, they won’t have the votes. Their members in districts that President Biden won, not that they’re so fond of President Biden, but they, these voters, will say that that’s just not the right way to go.”

That’s to be expected, we suppose, but what came next reminded us of the poisonous partisanship and the lack of introspection that pervaded the Beltway during her final years with the speaker’s gavel. “You know, everybody was on my case in 2007, when we, we, got the majority, and they wanted us to impeach President Bush for the war in Iraq, the misrepresentations going in, departing from Afghanistan too soon, all of that.”

And then: “But you, if you have a difference of opinion, you just can’t be impeaching, impeaching. On the other hand, this is a fake distraction, as you said. But I, they don’t even have the courage to bring it to the floor.”

That’s rich, no? That part about “a difference of opinion” not being enough of a reason to be “impeaching, impeaching.” Why, it’s as if she’d plum forgotten about the two impeachments that she orchestrated against Donald Trump, both of which involved a difference of opinion. In the first case, Trump believed that Joe Biden and his son Hunter were engaged in corrupt behavior in Ukraine, and Pelosi didn’t. And in the second case, Trump believed the 2020 election had been stolen from him, and Pelosi didn’t. So much for “a difference of opinion” not being sufficient cause for “impeaching, impeaching.”

On the other hand, we can only guess that the 170 major bank violations uncovered by House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer and his GOP colleagues, and the money laundering through phony shell companies, and the cash and gifts received from foreign entities by Hunter Biden and (six of) the (seven) Biden grandchildren, and the more than $20 million that the Bidens appear to have taken in from adversaries such as communist China — these matters are all just “a difference of opinion.”

As for that impeachment inquiry, columnist David Harsanyi points out that there’s plenty of specific evidence out there:

Let’s start with the IRS whistleblowers charged with investigating Hunter Biden’s tax case, who testified under oath that Joe was present in at least one meeting with Hunter’s foreign clients. In numerous private emails and texts and WhatsApp messages he never imagined would be made public, Hunter talks about his dad not only helping him secure payments but taking a cut for himself. Hunter’s former business partner contends that Joe was involved. Another of Hunter’s partners, who is also a former close friend, maintained under oath that Joe spoke to Hunter’s associates at least 24 times, often being dialed in on the phone during business meetings. An FBI informant documented conversations that indicated to him that Joe pressured foreign companies to send millions to the family business.

On Monday, Chairman Comer’s committee released the list of witnesses for the inquiry that takes place tomorrow. As the Washington Examiner reports, “The witnesses include Bruce Dubinsky, a forensic accountant with 40 years of experience, Eileen O'Connor, a former assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s tax division, and Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School.”

Let’s get on with it, then, and let’s see what this “difference of opinion” amounts to.