Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Royal Incoherence
Reporter James Rosen of Sinclair Broadcast Group asked Nancy Pelosi a question at her weekly press briefing Thursday. A very reasonable question, I think anyone would agree.
He asked, “I wonder if you could explain to the American people why the legal rights of the whistleblower should prevail in this political setting over those of President Trump, who should ordinarily enjoy a right to confront his accuser?” His question is reasonable because Mr. Trump is an American citizen with constitutional rights that do not disappear when he is elected to political office.
Nancy Pelosi’s response was remarkable: “Well, let me just say this, I will say to you, Mr. Republican Talking Points, what I said to the President of the United States. When you talk about the whistleblower, you’re coming into my wheelhouse. I have more experience in intelligence than anybody in Congress.” Holy Toledo.
First, he’s asking about the Constitutional rights of the president. How is that “Republican Talking Points?” If the Constitution is a Republican talking point, then the Democrats are in deeper doo-doo than I thought. And I thought it was pretty deep already.
Second, this section of her response: “When you talk about the whistleblower, you’re coming into my wheelhouse.” Huh? What does she mean, exactly, by this? I’m not sure how to respond to that.
Third, and the most entertaining part, “I have more experience in intelligence than anybody in Congress.” That just begs for some wonderful jokes – it’s too bad that all the late-night talk show guys can’t joke about Democrats. But it’s also interesting. I think. Does this mean that her whistleblower wheelhouse has something to do with military intelligence? Or something? It seems she was offended that anyone would question her royal highness on such a mundane matter and sought to put him in his place. Or something.
Mrs. Pelosi is the Speaker of the House. One of the most powerful people in the United States government. And one has to wonder, is she ok? Hopefully, she was drunk; so bombed out of her gourd that she couldn’t even speak coherently. I hope that’s the explanation because the only other explanation is that this is just how her brain works these days. Or doesn’t work.
Her response is also remarkable because of the completely predictable nature of the question. Surely she expected a question along these lines. It seems an obvious problem – surely someone will ask her about it at some point. How could she not have been prepared to address this most basic point? Or was this her prepared response?
Holy Toledo.
Mr. Trump speaks poorly, in my opinion, but he communicates extremely well. When I read one of his statements, I sometimes shake my head at his English, but I know exactly what he meant.
This is not the first time I’ve read a statement by Mrs. Pelosi, and I shake my head at her English, and I have no idea what she means to say.
Mr. Trump’s statements are often simplistic and blunt. Mrs. Pelosi’s are often muddled and incoherent.
I really wonder if she’s ok. Lord help us if her mind works the way it appears to work.
Published in General
If she really had more experience in the field she would have been prepared with a good answer to the question. So I question just what counts for “experience” in her book.
I love how they are dismissing every pertinent question as a “Republican talking point”. It’s a trend.
As is the use of “personal political benefit.”
She’s probably referring to her time on the Intelligence Committee. Which is, as everybody knows, the same thing as actually working in intelligence.
Well, admittedly those Congress folks ain’t none too bright.
I’ll bet the inside of that wheelhouse is padded.
Who knew that the entirety of Anglo-American law since the Magna Carta was just a Republican talking point. She does not get full marks, however, because she did not manage to work in “racism”, “homophobia”, “hate” or “climate change.”
Wow! I can’t think of the last time I’ve encountered an observation about Donald Trump that was actually interesting. I see his name so often – and he, the person, isn’t exactly a boring guy. Yet it’s always followed by an obvious, or obviously untrue, statement. I’d begun to think the subject may nearly be exhausted.
But I think you’ve actually found something here Doc! You may want to keep it in mind and elaborate on it occasionally.
First, James Rosen may or may not be a Republican, and his question may or may not be a Republican talking point. Just answer the damn question, Nancy!
Second, you don’t own Congress, and don’t call it your “wheelhouse”. Everyone – the press, average citizens, the President – has the right to ask Congress “What the hell is going on with this whistleblower?”
Third and finally, your “experience” in intelligence in Congress isn’t worth diddlely squat. Oh sure, you may know things the average citizen doesn’t, and that comes with your position. However, what you do with this wonderous knowledge is another thing entirely. From what a lot of Americans see (especially those who voted for Trump, which includes a lot of Democrats), your ability to deal with matters of intelligence is sadly lacking in understanding, other than you understand it might be a way to get rid of Trump.
I wouldn’t be too amused. Far too often, obfuscation works.
Well, when a normal person speaks of their wheelhouse, I think it’s supposed to mean it’s their area of expertise. I’m not sure why you’d say it the way she did, though. My guess is it’s something like President Obama saying “Don’t call my bluff”. Although given how it appears she didn’t actually answer the question maybe that’s what she meant was her wheelhouse.
We used to say, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b*lls**t.”
“If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”
Podium instead of table here to pound, but that’s basically what Pelosi was doing with Rosen’s question. She doesn’t want to answer it while impeachment is still in House control, because then she’d have to give an answer to explain why the traditional rules of judicial conduct on the most base level should be thrown out here, other than the fact it’s not a trial and she and Adam Schiff can do it.
She wants to get this thing over to the Senate, where McConnell can set much of the ground rules and then she, Schiff and the others can whine about out outrageous it is that Senate Republicans are forcing the whistleblower out into the open. Even though everyone involved already knows his name, and Schiff’s staff even messed up by not redacting it fully in the transcript. It’s all about being able to feign moral outrage, while being secure in the knowledge that none of the major media outlets are going to do any follow-ups on Rosen’s question, and will take Pelosi’s response at face value.
(Alternatively, Pelosi also could want to just get it done, period, by going through the process of impeachment and then settling for a censure or something else that allows them to spin that Trump was found guilty, while not exposing the whistleblower or any of the other Trump accusers from cross-examination in the Senate. Either way, the goal is to act outrageously outraged here about the question, in order to not answer the question.)
The ‘legal rights’ of the ‘whistleblower’ is terminology fabricated for unknown reasons. Those using that term suggest that the person needs shielding from violence. The only legal rights I know of for a ‘whistleblower’ would be federal law protecting a whistleblower who is a federal employee from retaliatory action from management within the organization in which the employee works. I don’t think there is a right to remain anonymous. I don’t think the ‘whistleblower’ statute even applies to the Executive Office of the President.
We finally get to understand why a new procedure resembling a common, ordinary oversight hearing called an ‘impeachment inquiry’ is being conducted by the House Intelligence Committee. Nancy knows more about intelligence matters than anyone else.
The due process rights for criminal trials do not apply to impeachment hearings whatever we call these Congressional hearings. The process that is due to the accuser is chosen by each chamber.
James Rosen: follow up question, when Eric Holder charged me as a co-conspirator to espionage, was that an attack on the First Amendment, or is that only when Donald Trump says mean things about a bunch of vainglorious suckmonkeys?
The only time prior to this the American public has had the honor to enjoy House impeachment proceedings, they have been conducted by ‘independent counsel’ where all the time-honored due process steps were followed. This is unprecedented while using the term ‘impeachment’. This is why most observers don’t see this leading to an impeachment vote unless some witnesses are called who deliver some evidence of an impeachable offense. After all, it is slightly insane to think a case can be forwarded to the Senate for trial without evidence. And who would handle the prosecutorial function? Is that what Lawfare is there for?
Don,
Thanks for explaining that. It’s what I suspected, but I’m not knowledgeable about law.
(You’re an ok guy. You tick me off sometimes, to be honest, but I guess that’s ok. It’s all Ricochet.)
They should stop calling these people ‘witnesses’. Here again we see our English words being destroyed.
This is one of the best distillations of Donald Trump I’ve ever seen. And I will be stealing it.
Technically true. But, as an American citizen and voter, I demand that any effort to undo the public vote to elect a President must be done in public. It is an offense to the American citizens to have our vote invalidated by a secret process.
To the Democrats the Constitution is an instrument of the Republican party. The Democratic Party has rejected the U.S. Constitution. Every single candidate seeking the nomination to be the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party had rejected the very concept of, and most of the specifics of, the U. S. Constitution. So, because the Democratic Party has rejected the U.S. Constitution, to the Democrats, the U.S. Constitution has become a Republican Talking Point.
Yes. Donald Trump knows there was some questionable behavior leading up to and even following the 2016 election cycle. There are indications some involved Ukraine. An investigation on the Ukraine involvement is the favor being requested. We will investigate what went on here. Some of the culprits were political appointees who have stepped down. They will get theirs. Others were bureaucrats who have been fired or perhaps some have been demoted. Heard anything from those people. Not much.
I really like this. I have written comments questioning the act of oath to support and defend the Constitution being mouthed by enemies of the Constitution.
Nancy is too arrogant for her own good. What an insult to answer Rosen with that supercilious attitude.
Yabbut, who would adjudicate the process accorded to the accused in an impeachment trial, if not the Senate itself?
The Supreme Court ruled in Nixon v. United States that the judicial branch has no authority to overrule the Senate when it comes to the impeachment process. Therefore, if the accused disagrees with the process to what other authority could he/she possibly appeal?
Now, as the presiding officer of an impeachment trial, it’s arguable that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court might have the authority in theory to overrule the Senate when it comes to process. Someone with a much more in depth knowledge of the history of impeachment will have to report whether or not a Chief Justice has ever done so in any previous impeachment trial.
In this case it’s very clear what she was trying to say – “[redacted] you!”.
They’ve lost their minds – plain and simple…
Can we stop calling him a “whistleblower”?
He’s a leaker. That’s all.
They may not be required by “law”, but they’re required by basic common sense and justice.
I see this as a significant (but theoretical) problem for candidate Bernie Sanders in particular, as a substantial portion of his stated platform is an intent to act counter to the provisions of, and underlying principles of, the United States Constitution. The other candidates have similar problems, but they have better obfuscated their oppositions to the Constitution.