Didn't you read Jim White's excellent comment about how things have a way of building up slowly and out of view until one day they pass a tipping point and suddenly everything's changed, and quite drastically. It is only the unaware or distracted observer who does not see this. It's like the "overnight success" in music or acting who had actually been plugging away at it in relative obscurity for years to perfect their craft and gather a critical mass of fans.

You say that "No case is being slowly and deliberately assembled for impeachment, either", which is patently false since that is precisely what the judiciary and other committees HAVE been doing (whether intentionally or not). You say that "The Judiciary Committee is not going to initiate an impeachment inquiry -- for anyone.", which you cannot possibly know.

You say that "Ms Pelosi was clear and deliberate in her statement, and she has been consistent and forthright ever since. There will be no impeachment. She wasn't and hasn't been toying with anyone, nor is she shucking and jiving like a pol. She is stating fact.", when in fact she said and did no such thing. You WANT to believe that she said this, but that is not what she said. She didn't say "There will be no impeachment." She said "Impeachment is off the table". If you cannot or will not read the rich subtext there, then that is not my fault.

You said:

Right now, contempt citations are 50/50 possibilites for some relatively low level WH staffers and private citizens. They will probably be statutory, not inherent contempt citations, if there are any at all, and they will be referred to the US Attorney for DC who will decline to refer the matter to a grand jury as instructed by statute. There the matter will likely be dropped.

The former WH political director and counsel are "low level WH staffers"?!? Ok, you've just totally discredited yourself here. In any WH, but especially this one, these are easily among the top 10 or so most important west wing positions, the others including chief of staff (Bolton, formerly Card), DCoS (Rove), National Security Advisor (Hadley, formerly Rice), OMB chief (???), chief legislative liason (?), and of course the top 2 guys. You're just making stuff up now.

You also have no way of knowing what kind of contempt citations they will issue, whether it'll be just one kind, or what will happen with it/them. Nor do you have any way of knowing whether the current DC USA or the court-appointed USA who will replace him in the fall (as per S.214) will deliberately fail to do their job and themselves be held in contempt.

Your ENTIRE "argument" is based on half-truths, distortions, oversimplifications, assumptions, guesses and conjecture that amounts to far less than you seem to be convinced that it does. I have pointed out just a few glaring examples of this, but there's a lot more (Chou En-lai and Robespierre are the kinds of leaders we should be seeking to emulate?!?).

It seems to me that you want to convince yourself and others that there will be no impeachment so you can then set yourself up as a wise seer of dire things that the rest of us are too blind to see, and allow you to then tell us all how screwed we all are, because we won't listen to you. Well, we're all ears, but until we start hearing some fact-based and solidly argued arguments, many of us just won't be hearing much.

They say that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Well, so is the absurd. Perhaps it's time to reread that Ionesco, Abbey or Hajek. And the Federalist Papers wouldn't hurt, either.