Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
timschochet

The Nancy Pelosi thread

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

What's your theory regarding why Trump fired Comey? Because Comey had been unfair to Hillary?

I believe Comey was fired because Trump was irritated by the continued investigation into Russian collusion. Trump admitted as much, after the White House tried to lie about it. It was an act of corruption, perhaps obstruction of justice (here I’m not sure because the President does have the right to fire him for ANY reason). It remains, IMO, the worst act of a corrupt nature that I am SURE that Trump committed, and that includes paying off Stormy Daniels. 

But- does it warrant his removal from office? I’m not convinced that it does. I’m not convinced that it doesn't either. I’m unsure that it rises to the level of impeachment as I understand the term to be, and that’s why I can’t get anywhere close to the moral “right vs wrong” outrage that The Commish and others are at. Not yet anyhow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

My answer is no it would not. 

OK, glad you agree to that. So now, to quote the old joke, we're just haggling over the price.

Where do you draw the line between "serious, obvious crime" and "murky, debatable crime"? What if Mueller produces a fairly solid case that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia during the 2016 election? What if the SDNY produces evidence that Trump committed massive fraud during his business career? What if Trump "only" committed obstruction of justice? And what criteria are you using to draw that line?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zftcg said:

OK, glad you agree to that. So now, to quote the old joke, we're just haggling over the price.

Where do you draw the line between "serious, obvious crime" and "murky, debatable crime"? What if Mueller produces a fairly solid case that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia during the 2016 election? What if the SDNY produces evidence that Trump committed massive fraud during his business career? What if Trump "only" committed obstruction of justice? And what criteria are you using to draw that line?

 

It’s not necessary, for my argument, for me to answer what is an obvious crime that warrants removal. To paraphrase Potter Stewart about porn: I’ll know it when I see it. 

But more importantly: if Trump commits an obvious crime that warrants his removal, the Republicans will be along for the ride. Which will make the question of an impeachment process without hope of removal a moot point. And that’s why it was fine and correct  for Pelosi to include the word “bipartisan.” 

If the crime is obvious, Republicans will agree to throw him out. If you and others doubt this, then it seems to be that YOU are the ones who are being cynical about our political system, not me. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

 

If the crime is obvious, Republicans will agree to throw him out.

 

Can you show me an example of anything a republican has done in the past two years that would lead you to believe this?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

If the crime is obvious, Republicans will agree to throw him out.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Thanks, I needed a laugh.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

If the crime is obvious, Republicans will agree to throw him out. If you and others doubt this, then it seems to be that YOU are the ones who are being cynical about our political system, not me. 

Have you seen who's president? I question anyone who's experienced the past few years and is NOT cynical about our system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It’s not necessary, for my argument, for me to answer what is an obvious crime that warrants removal. To paraphrase Potter Stewart about porn: I’ll know it when I see it. 

But more importantly: if Trump commits an obvious crime that warrants his removal, the Republicans will be along for the ride. Which will make the question of an impeachment process without hope of removal a moot point. And that’s why it was fine and correct  for Pelosi to include the word “bipartisan.” 

If the crime is obvious, Republicans will agree to throw him out. If you and others doubt this, then it seems to be that YOU are the ones who are being cynical about our political system, not me. 

This actually goes to an important philosophical point. Republicans have been trashing norms for the better part of two decades. I'm someone who recognizes the value of norms, but I also think Democrats have to recognize the new reality that's been created and can't just pretend nothing has changed.

Based on the past two years, Republicans being unwilling to turn on an obviously criminal president is a very legitimate worry, and we need to think about how we should react to that new reality. Simply closing our eyes and assuming they'll do the right thing is not much of a plan.

So let's extend the hypothetical. Say that prosecutors produce evidence that, in your view, satisfies the Potter Stewart test, but Republicans still refuse to act. What should Democrats do in that scenario?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, zftcg said:

 

So let's extend the hypothetical. Say that prosecutors produce evidence that, in your view, satisfies the Potter Stewart test, but Republicans still refuse to act. What should Democrats do in that scenario?

Use the Republican refusal to try to win a decisive majority in the next election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

Can you show me an example of anything a republican has done in the past two years that would lead you to believe this?

My whole point is that in the past two years Trump has done nothing that OBVIOUSLY warrants his removal from office. That’s the key to my disagreement with The Commish and others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

I believe Comey was fired because Trump was irritated by the continued investigation into Russian collusion.

Isn't that the very definition of obstruction of justice? I'm not sure how that leaves any uncertainty about whether Trump obstructed justice.

You could maybe argue that obstructing a counterintelligence investigation into electoral meddling by a foreign adversary isn't a big deal. But it very literally amounts to obstruction of justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

A few months ago I was convinced that the firing of James Comey, and the warning to James Comey to “let the Flynn matter drop”, were acts of obstruction of justice, but I’m less sure of that now.

wat

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Hey Commish- I mention this only because you made the same mistake twice: the word you want is “tenet”. “tenants” are people I have to deal with in property management. 

i know...on my phone and didn't pay attention to autocorrect.....sorry about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Use the Republican refusal to try to win a decisive majority in the next election. 

Doesn't that require Dems impeaching him and sending the case to the Senate? How else can you prove GOP refusal unless you actually put them on the spot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manu Raju@mkraju

I asked Pelosi if she believes there was no collusion in light of Mueller’s finding, and she declined to respond. Asked by @AlexNBCNews if Trump has been exonerated, she said:  “I think the Mueller report is clear the president was not exonerated.”

:mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Widbil83 said:

Manu Raju@mkraju

I asked Pelosi if she believes there was no collusion in light of Mueller’s finding, and she declined to respond. Asked by @AlexNBCNews if Trump has been exonerated, she said:  “I think the Mueller report is clear the president was not exonerated.”

:mellow:

Well that’s literally true per the summary. It states that he is not exonerated from obstruction charges. That’s a direct quote I believe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Widbil83 said:

Manu Raju@mkraju

I asked Pelosi if she believes there was no collusion in light of Mueller’s finding, and she declined to respond. Asked by @AlexNBCNews if Trump has been exonerated, she said:  “I think the Mueller report is clear the president was not exonerated.”

:mellow:

Barr’s summary said:

“The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."”

It takes about 5 minutes to read the summary for yourself, or you can just continue to look foolish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

Well that’s literally true per the summary. It states that he is not exonerated from obstruction charges. That’s a direct quote I believe. 

Not just obstruction charges, but also “collusion.” Barr quotes the Mueller report as saying that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

That’s saying something, but there’s a whole lot it’s not saying. Even If Mueller found irrefutable proof that (1) Manafort illegally coordinated with Deripaska to help Trump win the election, and (2) Trump made a deal directly with Putin that he’d get to build Trump Tower Moscow If he weakened the NATO alliance during his presidency, those things wouldn’t contradict anything in the Barr letter.

I don’t think those things happened. I’m just cautioning that, strictly speaking, the Barr letter doesn’t say that those things didn’t happen. Until the Mueller report is released, let’s not read more exoneration into the Barr letter than is actually there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering it is nearly impossible to prove you didn't do anything especially in a conspiracy type accusation, this is the best we are going to get.   Fortunately we live in a country where the burdon of proof is on the prosecution.  You can argue obstruction, but without substantial evidence of the real crime, people don't care.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She also just said that Trump simply wasn’t prepared to say where the infrastructure money was coming from, that “perhaps he just isn’t capable of figuring stuff like that out”, and added “I wanted to say this because we in the House of Representatives are not going to be held responsible for the President’s incompetence.” 

Damn. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s great theatre, but ultimately unproductive and a waste of time imo.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Osaurus said:

It’s great theatre, but ultimately unproductive and a waste of time imo.

You think so? I disagree. I think there is a method to her madness. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

You think so? I disagree. I think there is a method to her madness. 

I do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, timschochet said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/videos/politics/2019/05/23/nancy-pelosi-house-presser-trump-intervention-sot-vpx.cnn

She is truly goading him now. After questioning his competence, she is now publicly urging Trump’s aides and family to “stage an intervention.” 

Lolol

If only the Speaker of the House had some way to hold Trump accountable for his various crimes and misdemeanors besides witty repartee.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You think so? I disagree. I think there is a method to her madness. 

Of course there is. She will dominate the coverage over Trump in the next news cycle, unless she gets him to emotionally react, which depending on his response, might confirm that he does need an intervention.

Her critics always underestimate Pelosi and Trump is no exception. She has been deft in her handling of him so far, particularly after he stormed out (as was pre-planned) of the infrastructure meeting yesterday.

Enjoyed this from CNN:

https://us.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics/nancy-pelosi-shade-donald-trump/index.html

Nancy Pelosi, master of shade

Master of Shade.

Queen of Shade.

Shady Nancy.

Speaker of Shade.

In Pelosi, Trump has something he has never had. A person -- a woman, at that -- who challenges, frustrates and frequently doles out plenty of strategic shade. For a man who laps up and feeds on the adoration of cheering crowds -- and who has cowed former rivals such as Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz -- the charismatic Pelosi reminds him that his power isn't limitless. With every briefing and White House meeting, she flexes her own considerable power.

[...]

She doles out shade, the kind that takes a little while to reveal itself. She goes on detours and tangents -- in some cases about Jefferson and Roosevelt and Eisenhower and the Erie Canal -- and then it becomes apparent that the path leads right to Shadytown. All the while, there is a kind of detached bemusement. A businesslike aloofness to the whole affair.

While Trump fumes, Pelosi gently waves a fan. It isn't that she's mad. Just disappointed.

These are classic Jedi-mind tricks, perfected by a woman who had five kids in six years. Five kids in six years.

"She has a way of delivering her message to the intended without rubbing their face in it -- without directly telling them why she's so disappointed," said Nancy Corinne Prowda in aninterview with The Washington Post about her mom. "It'd be better if she'd just get mad at you."

And for Trump, Pelosi, in all of her dispassionate, unemotional glory, ends up being a giant red flag, a perfect foil.

She embodies what he has never had -- a check on his behavior.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kellyanne whines about Nancy: “she treats me like a maid!” 

Nancy’s response: “I’m not going to talk about her.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

If only the Speaker of the House had some way to hold Trump accountable for his various crimes and misdemeanors besides witty repartee.  

It’s not holding him accountable so long as Republicans aren’t on board. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, squistion said:

Of course there is. She will dominate the coverage over Trump in the next news cycle, unless she gets him to emotionally react, which depending on his response, might confirm that he does need an intervention.

Her critics always underestimate Pelosi and Trump is no exception. She has been deft in her handling of him so far, particularly after he stormed out (as was pre-planned) of the infrastructure meeting yesterday.

Enjoyed this from CNN:

https://us.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics/nancy-pelosi-shade-donald-trump/index.html

Nancy Pelosi, master of shade

Master of Shade.

Queen of Shade.

Shady Nancy.

Speaker of Shade.

In Pelosi, Trump has something he has never had. A person -- a woman, at that -- who challenges, frustrates and frequently doles out plenty of strategic shade. For a man who laps up and feeds on the adoration of cheering crowds -- and who has cowed former rivals such as Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz -- the charismatic Pelosi reminds him that his power isn't limitless. With every briefing and White House meeting, she flexes her own considerable power.

[...]

She doles out shade, the kind that takes a little while to reveal itself. She goes on detours and tangents -- in some cases about Jefferson and Roosevelt and Eisenhower and the Erie Canal -- and then it becomes apparent that the path leads right to Shadytown. All the while, there is a kind of detached bemusement. A businesslike aloofness to the whole affair.

While Trump fumes, Pelosi gently waves a fan. It isn't that she's mad. Just disappointed.

These are classic Jedi-mind tricks, perfected by a woman who had five kids in six years. Five kids in six years.

"She has a way of delivering her message to the intended without rubbing their face in it -- without directly telling them why she's so disappointed," said Nancy Corinne Prowda in aninterview with The Washington Post about her mom. "It'd be better if she'd just get mad at you."

And for Trump, Pelosi, in all of her dispassionate, unemotional glory, ends up being a giant red flag, a perfect foil.

She embodies what he has never had -- a check on his behavior.

I get your excitement but actions speak louder than words.  Words of a politician mean almost nothing without action to back the words up.  But that is just my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It’s not holding him accountable so long as Republicans aren’t on board. 

You sound like the Virginia GOP while dealing with their mess.  Well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, squistion said:

Of course there is. She will dominate the coverage over Trump in the next news cycle, unless she gets him to emotionally react, which depending on his response, might confirm that he does need an intervention.

Her critics always underestimate Pelosi and Trump is no exception. She has been deft in her handling of him so far, particularly after he stormed out (as was pre-planned) of the infrastructure meeting yesterday.

Enjoyed this from CNN:

https://us.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics/nancy-pelosi-shade-donald-trump/index.html

Nancy Pelosi, master of shade

Master of Shade.

Queen of Shade.

Shady Nancy.

Speaker of Shade.

In Pelosi, Trump has something he has never had. A person -- a woman, at that -- who challenges, frustrates and frequently doles out plenty of strategic shade. For a man who laps up and feeds on the adoration of cheering crowds -- and who has cowed former rivals such as Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz -- the charismatic Pelosi reminds him that his power isn't limitless. With every briefing and White House meeting, she flexes her own considerable power.

[...]

She doles out shade, the kind that takes a little while to reveal itself. She goes on detours and tangents -- in some cases about Jefferson and Roosevelt and Eisenhower and the Erie Canal -- and then it becomes apparent that the path leads right to Shadytown. All the while, there is a kind of detached bemusement. A businesslike aloofness to the whole affair.

While Trump fumes, Pelosi gently waves a fan. It isn't that she's mad. Just disappointed.

These are classic Jedi-mind tricks, perfected by a woman who had five kids in six years. Five kids in six years.

"She has a way of delivering her message to the intended without rubbing their face in it -- without directly telling them why she's so disappointed," said Nancy Corinne Prowda in aninterview with The Washington Post about her mom. "It'd be better if she'd just get mad at you."

And for Trump, Pelosi, in all of her dispassionate, unemotional glory, ends up being a giant red flag, a perfect foil.

She embodies what he has never had -- a check on his behavior.

God I hate CNN.  it is the worst "news" organization out there that I can reference.

I dont ever go to Fox news so I can't say if they are just as bad....but CNN is just so childish, unprofessional....I hate them with a passion.  Shade?  Really? Multiple times? Shadytown?

And yet, I still check out their website.....I can't look away.

 

Oh and also, why is Pelosi getting credit for having 5 kids in six years....How is that some kind of achievement? She had sex and got pregnant?  We should celebrate that somehow?

Edited by supermike80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Oh and also, why is Pelosi getting credit for having 5 kids in six years....How is that some kind of achievement? She had sex and got pregnant?  We should celebrate that somehow?

That indicates that she is experienced in dealing with toddlers and, by extension, an adult who has the temperament of one.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, squistion said:

That indicates that she is experienced in dealing with toddlers and, by extension, an adult who has the temperament of one.

Maybe..I considered that after I went on my tirade.  It wasn't written like that, but then again, this "writer" used "shade" like 8 times in her piece.

Journalism is soooo dead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really torn on this - on one hand I've always felt that the partisanship and politicians not acting like adults is why we are in this current mess.  On the other hand, Trump is a <redacted> and deserves any and everything coming to him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, The Commish said:

You sound like the Virginia GOP while dealing with their mess.  Well done.

We've been over this. Nancy Pelosi is not standing still. Her policy at this time is to continue to have the committees investigate, to issue subpoenas, and to win court battles. That will take months, not years. At the end of that time if she doesn't start impeachment proceedings then I will agree with your criticism. But right now it's still premature. She needs to get some of these people to testify publicly in order to change public opinion.

I think this is wise strategy. It's not going to satisfy anyone looking for immediate impeachment. It calls for patience. But it's not like your comparison, because she's not shirking from her duties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

 

Journalism is soooo dead

You couldn't be more wrong, IMO.  CNN (the online articles), the New York Times, the Washington Post, have all been stellar during the Trump years. I've never been more impressed by the media, to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel Dale reporting on comments Trump just made to the press about Pelosi:

Trump takes a shot at Pelosi's intelligence, saying of his new NAFTA, "I don't think Nancy Pelosi understands the deal. It's too complicated. But it's not a complicated deal."

Trump, taking questions, continues about Pelosi, with no apparent basis: "She's a mess. Look, let's face it. She doesn't understand it. They sort of feel, she's disintegrating before their eyes. She does not understand it."

Trump keeps insulting Pelosi's mind, calling her "Crazy Nancy" and saying, "I'll tell you what, I've been watching her, and I have been watching her for a long period of time, she's not the same person. She's lost it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

It’s not holding him accountable so long as Republicans aren’t on board. 

Expecting Republicans to get on board before Democrats do is absurd.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, squistion said:

Daniel Dale reporting on comments Trump just made to the press about Pelosi:

Trump takes a shot at Pelosi's intelligence, saying of his new NAFTA, "I don't think Nancy Pelosi understands the deal. It's too complicated. But it's not a complicated deal."

Trump, taking questions, continues about Pelosi, with no apparent basis: "She's a mess. Look, let's face it. She doesn't understand it. They sort of feel, she's disintegrating before their eyes. She does not understand it."

Trump keeps insulting Pelosi's mind, calling her "Crazy Nancy" and saying, "I'll tell you what, I've been watching her, and I have been watching her for a long period of time, she's not the same person. She's lost it."

His old, tried and true, project his deficiencies on his opponent schtick. So pathetic. More pathetic that people lap it up.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Maybe..I considered that after I went on my tirade.  It wasn't written like that, but then again, this "writer" used "shade" like 8 times in her piece.

Journalism is soooo dead

You’re just old. I feel the same way when I watch a commercial and say to my wife “wtf was that?” I must not be in the 18-35 demographic that they advertise to anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is great. :lol:  Pelosi really is getting under his skin.

Here is a 7+ minute video, from ABC, of Trump calling on multiple senior aides to defend him and vouch for his 'calm' demeanor in the infrastructure meeting with Democrats after Nancy Pelosi said that he'd had a temper tantrum.

ABC News Politics  

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1131658573300359169 (video at link)

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump just said he's an extremely stable genius. Here is Nancy's response:

When the “extremely stable genius” starts acting more presidential, I’ll be happy to work with him on infrastructure, trade and other issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Kelly O'Donnell‏ @KellyO 1h1 hour ago

“She is a mess” @realDonaldTrump on @SpeakerPelosi in what has devolved into serious personal attacks

Take that, Mr. President:

Nancy Pelosi‏ @SpeakerPelosi  11m              

When the “extremely stable genius” starts acting more presidential, I’ll be happy to work with him on infrastructure, trade and other issues.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, squistion said:

Daniel Dale reporting on comments Trump just made to the press about Pelosi:

Trump takes a shot at Pelosi's intelligence, saying of his new NAFTA, "I don't think Nancy Pelosi understands the deal. It's too complicated. But it's not a complicated deal."

Trump, taking questions, continues about Pelosi, with no apparent basis: "She's a mess. Look, let's face it. She doesn't understand it. They sort of feel, she's disintegrating before their eyes. She does not understand it."

Trump keeps insulting Pelosi's mind, calling her "Crazy Nancy" and saying, "I'll tell you what, I've been watching her, and I have been watching her for a long period of time, she's not the same person. She's lost it."

The old I'm rubber you're glue riposte.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ericttspikes said:

The old I'm rubber you're glue riposte.  

Two old people taking pot shots at each other.  How wonderful to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:
2 hours ago, The Commish said:

You sound like the Virginia GOP while dealing with their mess.  Well done.

We've been over this. Nancy Pelosi is not standing still. Her policy at this time is to continue to have the committees investigate, to issue subpoenas, and to win court battles. That will take months, not years. At the end of that time if she doesn't start impeachment proceedings then I will agree with your criticism. But right now it's still premature. She needs to get some of these people to testify publicly in order to change public opinion.

I think this is wise strategy. It's not going to satisfy anyone looking for immediate impeachment. It calls for patience. But it's not like your comparison, because she's not shirking from her duties.

None of what you type here has anything to do with my response to your quote above which is essentially the exact same argument the GOP is making in the Virginia debacle, thus you sounding just like them :shrug: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, shader said:

Two old people taking pot shots at each other.  How wonderful to watch.

Reminds me of an old dirty joke. Punchline is "slowly and badly" .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.