Tag Archives: Pelosi is a Traitor

Petulant Nancy Pelosi is everything wrong with Democratic Party: Devine

By Miranda Devine

February 9, 2020 | 11:00pm | Updated Enlarge Image

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Getty Images

Nancy Pelosi looked like a malfunctioning Stepford wife as she sat behind President Trump during his State of the Union address last week. Her lower face twitched, she muttered to herself, shook her head, smiled inappropriately, gazed around, chewed her lip or remained glued to her seat during standing ovations in honor of special guests.

It was a bizarre enough performance before she rose to her feet and dramatically ripped up her copy of the president’s speech in what will go down in history as the most unseemly display of partisanship in this partisan era.

That moment was when the myth of the “master political strategist” was busted, and we saw Pelosi, 79, for what she is. Pretending to be classy and prayerful when she is full of petty hatreds and is incapable of holding her party together, a woman who parades her Catholicism while advocating no-holds-barred abortions, feigning to pray for the president while deriding him as “sedated.”

As the leader of the Democrats until they select a presidential candidate, Pelosi is everything that is wrong with the party.

She told reporters that ripping up the speech was “a very dignified act … the courteous thing to do, considering some of the other exuberances within me.”

But her petulant vandalism was the opposite of courteous, quite obviously.

It only underscored the desperation of a party that has lurched to the left in pursuit of Bernie Sanders’ supporters, as the president reaps the reward of a booming economy and his opponents’ continual miscalculations.

Pelosi showed no contrition for ripping up the speech, nor for the political catastrophe of her failed impeachment drive.

see also

It’s Nancy Pelosi who should be censured: Goodwin

That failure is the albatross around the neck of her party’s presidential candidates as they flail their way through icy New Hampshire.

Bereft of economic ideas, they are reduced to espousing electorally unpalatable policy positions: radical abortion, gender quotas in the cabinet, wholesale drug legalization and the kind of criminal justice reform that has turbo-charged crime in New York.

If Pelosi meant to delay handing over the impeachment articles to the Senate as a strategic masterstroke to tie up ascendant socialist Sanders in the Senate and give Joe Biden three weeks on his own in Iowa, that, too, backfired big-time.

The more Iowa saw of Biden, the less they wanted him, and the candidate who benefited most from those moderate votes was Pete Buttigieg, who has done a good job of disguising his radical views on the campaign trail.

The former South Bend, Ind., mayor said last month that there’s no place for pro-lifers in the Democratic Party, and claimed the Bible says a baby’s life begins with “breath.”

In Concord, NH, Saturday, he was vaguer when asked about the comment.

“We’re a big tent … What I’m not going to do is get someone’s vote by tricking them.”

But Sanders was less coy: “Being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat.”

Like Biden, Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang, Sanders wants to enact a “litmus test” for judicial appointments:

“I will never nominate anybody who is not 100 percent pro-Roe v. Wade.”

But most Democrats don’t share these intolerant views. As Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, who challenged Buttigieg in a live Fox News town hall last month over his pro-abortion stance, points out, 59 percent of Democrats support restrictions on abortion.

With Mike Bloomberg waiting in the wings, maybe the candidates in New Hampshire have thrown caution to the wind in the hope of stopping Sanders.

But there’s one metric that tells you why Democrats are so morose: the president’s job approval ratings among nonwhites, according to Gallup.

That group, thought to be a lock for Democrats, is coming loose. Approval of Trump by all voters is at 49 percent, the highest of his presidency and higher than for Barack Obama (45 percent) at the same point in his presidency.

Trump has gained 10 points since impeachment began in October. Nice one, Nancy.

But nonwhites’ approval of Trump also is at a high: 28 percent, up 10 points in a year.

When it comes to Trump’s handling of the economy, he gets 67 percent overall job approval and a resounding 49 percent among nonwhites, the beneficiaries of lower unemployment and higher wages.

So almost half of all black and Hispanic voters think Trump is doing a good job with the economy. That makes him hard to beat.

see also

Here’s what Trump thinks about Pelosi ripping up State of the Union speech

As well, 23 percent of nonwhites say Trump deserves to be re-elected, 13 percent say they will vote for him regardless of who the Democratic nominee is and 36 percent will decide once they see whom the Democrats choose.

The Democrats’ counteroffer is unpalatable social policy and tantrums from Pelosi.

Hating Trump is not enough, as you can tell from the subdued applause in New Hampshire when candidates rip into the president.

Yang knows real reason Don is prez

Andrew Yang may be lagging behind the field of Democratic presidential candidates in New Hampshire, but he is the only one with a clear-eyed view of his ultimate potential opponent.

“Why is Donald Trump our president?” he asked 7,000 Democrats on Saturday night at the McIntyre-Shaheen 100 Club gala dinner in Manchester.

“It’s not Russia. He is our president because we lost 4 million manufacturing jobs in Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania [and] New Hampshire. Those towns have never recovered.

“We make a mistake when we say Donald Trump is the source of all our problems. He’s not. He is the symptom of a disease.”

Liz blames ‘racism’ on racism

Elizabeth Warren, who launched her academic career by falsely posing as a Native American to get favorable treatment at Harvard, would make Martin Luther King roll over in his grave with her push for “race-conscious laws.”

No surprise, then, that she is in denial about race problems in her own campaign. Asked about why six “women of color” quit her Nevada campaign, complaining of tokenism and a “toxic work environment,” Warren told MSNBC it was the fault of America’s “long legacy” of “racism and oppression [which] creates the kinds of toxicity where … people take advantage of other people.” Huh? Filed under 2020 presidential electionAndrew Yangdemocratsdonald trumpelizabeth warrennancy pelosi

Nancy Pelosi Flipped Her Lid After Learning That President Trump Was Going to Fire Vindman

POSTED BY: DEAN JAMES From Mark Sidney at Illicit Info OPINION Blog Opinion| Mark Sidney| Why do I have a feeling this is going to be the next hill that Nancy Pelosi and her Democrips choose to die on? We quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson the other day, saying “When you strike at a king, you must kill him.” Well little Mr. Vindman, […]

The post Nancy Pelosi Flipped Her Lid After Learning That President Trump Was Going to Fire Vindman appeared first on DC Clothesline.

Nancy Pelosi Flipped Her Lid After Learning That President Trump Was Going to Fire Vindman
Mark Sidney
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 06:34:10 GMT

How the House destroyed its own case for the Trump impeachment | TheHill

Source: How the House destroyed its own case for the Trump impeachment | TheHill

“Situation quiet. The captain has been put away for the night.” The words from the movie “The Caine Mutiny” came to mind on Friday when House leaders announced that Speaker Nancy Pelosi would not move until next week in submitting the impeachment of President Trump to a Senate trial. While various Democrats have publicly grumbled about the delay, going into its fourth week, without any sign of success in forcing the Senate to call witnesses, Pelosi continued a strategy that could jeopardize not just any trial but the rules governing impeachment. Indeed, Pelosi may force the Senate into a couple of unprecedented but well deserved rulings.

From the outset, the ploy of Pelosi withholding the House impeachment articles was as implausible as it was hypocritical. There was no reason why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would make concessions to get an impeachment that he loathed. More importantly, just a couple of days earlier, House leaders insisted that some of us were wrong to encourage them to wait on an impeachment vote to create a more complete record. Pelosi previously insisted that House committees could not pursue direct witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton because there was no time to delay in getting this impeachment to the Senate. She then waited a month and counting to send the articles over to the Senate.

The delay now seems largely driven by a desire to preserve the image of Pelosi as a master strategist despite a blunder of the first order. Senator Dianne Feinstein expressed the frustration of many members in saying, “The longer it goes on, the less urgent it becomes. So if it is serious and urgent, send them over. If it is not, do not send it over.” But she and other members were quickly pressured to “correct” their earlier statements by stating the exact opposite and praising the brilliant strategy of Pelosi.

Perhaps the most pathetic change was House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, who correctly stated, “At the end of the day, just like we control it in the House, Mitch McConnell controls it in the Senate. It does not look like that is going to happen. I think it is time to send the impeachment to the Senate and let Mitch McConnell be responsible for the fairness of the trial. He ultimately is.” It took just a few hours for Pelosi to get Smith to say that he “misspoke” and praise her inspired strategy.

Now what started as a demand to guarantee Senate witnesses has been downgraded to a demand to “know the rules” while waiting for the Senate to take a vote that it indicated weeks ago. In the alternative, sympathetic media figures insisted that Pelosi succeeded in “forcing a discussion” of Senate witnesses despite the fact that we had the same discussion in the trial of Bill Clinton without the House deciding to withhold the articles.

The fact is that Pelosi played into the hands of McConnell by first rushing this impeachment forward with an incomplete record and now giving him the excuse to summarily change the rules, or even to dismiss the articles. Waiting for the House to submit a list of managers was always a courtesy extended by Senate rules and not a requirement of the Constitution. By inappropriately withholding the articles of impeachment and breaking with tradition, Pelosi simply gave McConnell ample reason to exercise the “nuclear option” and change the rules on both majority voting as well as the rule for the start of trials. That is a high price to pay for her vanity.

It could get even worse for the House case. I previously discussed that the Senate had an excuse to simply declare that a trial will start next week and either the House will appear with a team of managers or the case will be summarily dismissed. McConnell is now moving toward a summary vote in the Senate, in light of the House failing to comply with its own procedural obligations. That is what happens when prosecutors defy a court and fail to appear for a trial. It is known as “dismissal for want of prosecution.”

The Senate also is faced with two threshold problems that could create lasting damage to this process. First, the obstruction of Congress count, as I previously discussed, raises a troubling position that a president can be impeached for going to the courts rather than turning over evidence, even when the House set a ridiculously brief period for an investigation. The Senate could summarily reject that article as making the request for judicial review into a high crime and misdemeanor while allowing little time for deliberation. Second, if the Senate agrees to the Democratic demand for witnesses, it invites future rush impeachments where the House sends woefully incomplete and inadequate cases and demands witnesses it never bothered to subpoena, let alone compel to appear.


The Senate is, therefore, caught in a tough position of enabling the House in such slipshod impeachments or refusing to hear witnesses who, unlike the witnesses called by the House, could have direct evidence to share on the allegations. One possibility is that, as in a real court, the Senate could allow witnesses but give the House a set trial schedule. If the House wants to belatedly go to court to try to enforce a subpoena, the Senate will hear the testimony of witnesses like Bolton when that expedited litigation is complete. However, it will not extend the trial schedule of the Senate.

Trials will usually last a fraction of the time of an investigation, but few investigations are as hurried or heedless as the House investigation was. The House wasted four months after the whistleblower complaint without issuing a subpoena to Bolton or Rudy Giuliani or others. Had it sought to compel such subpoenas, it would have had rulings from the courts by now. Indeed, it took only three months for the appeal over the Watergate tapes to be ruled on by the Supreme Court in the case of Richard Nixon.

The Senate could set a generous period for the trial of three weeks. That is in addition to the four weeks the House wasted on the poorly conceived ploy by Pelosi. If the House is ready to present these witnesses, they can be heard. But if those witnesses are not ready to testify due to ongoing litigation, they will not be called and the Senate will proceed to its verdict. In that way, future Houses are now on notice that it is in their interest to complete their records before sending an impeachment to the Senate.

It would send a message for future impeachments, as the author Herman Wouk wrote, “Remember this, if you can. There is nothing more precious than time. You probably feel you have a measureless supply of it, but you have not. Wasted hours destroy your life just as surely at the beginning as at the end, only in the end it becomes more obvious.” It is now obvious.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a witness expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing during the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.