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
It’s actually not a bad non-answer. If you answer a challenge with logic, your answer can be rebutted with logic. But as Pelosi responded, her fellow Democrats can claim she answered and such theater is enough to satisfy them. As you well know, Democrats don’t really care what opponents think.
In other words, maybe it’s lunacy, but maybe it’s cunning. It’s hard to tell when listening to someone with no care for truth.
The people.
Hogan Gidley used the term Communist in describing some of these Democrats. I hope that gets some greater usage in the campaign next year.
Why? Wouldn’t that distract attention from their illegalities and abuses of power? Why try to change the debate to one about policy?
When you put it that way, I have to say: Lord help us!
Those candidates are all the prodigal son, waiting and despoiling their glorious and irreplaceable inheritance.
We rubes and deplorable who love this country and the ideas it represents will not welcome those candidates into office with open arms.
This impeachment fiasco is less about Trump, but a test for the American people. Just how stupid, ignorant and foolish are we?
G-d in heaven guide our steps. 🙏
Adherence to some pre-determined process is important in the case of impeachment, as it is in the case of the impeachment of a private citizen under civil or criminal law.
But when I’m in the dock, due process is due to me. When the President or other high official is, due process is due to us, the People. We aren’t concerned in the slightest, as a Constitutional matter, about the President’s personal rights as a citizen.
There’s a difference there.
Yes, “Bolshevik” is a better word, it carries the connotations of terror and arbitrary government power to destroy their opponents.
Yeah, I’ve never understood that.
I mean, let’s say that the question actually came from RNC headquarters and the reporter read it verbatim to Pelosi.
We can perhaps criticize him for partisanship/laziness, but that doesn’t in any way invalidate the question.
If she were honest, she’d admit that even though she lacks intelligence, she has encountered it often enough to recognize it when she sees it.
The lack of American Constitutional character in Democrat Party motives and leadership is evident in these proceedings. Impeachment has been a strong Democrat Party motive since Trump’s election. Unanimity is a requirement of the Party platform. This is the way Communists operate. I am surprised that the Democrats act as if the American voters are incapable of seeing what is happening. Even the media cannot avoid the actual testimony delivered in these hearings.
I have a single question to ask of anyone who might still think impeachment here is a meaningful endeavor:
Consider the animosity toward the President known to exist within the bureaucracy. How can you imagine there is a witness yet not uncovered who has direct knowledge of an impeachable act?
They’ve been doing it off and on for many years. Labeling it as “Republican” means it’s evil and doesn’t need to be addressed.
As this discussion has gone on, I have been reminded that it was Mrs. Pelosi who responded in disbelief when she was asked about the Constitutional basis on which Congress was passing the [misnamed] Affordable Care Act (often called “Obamacare”).
She of course also said Congress had to pass legislation before legislators were permitted to find out what was in it.
So, despite having been a member of Congress for a long time, she does not express much understanding of Constitutional structure or principles.
I will never forget that question and answer. Nancy Pelosi responded as if she could not make a connection between Congressional legislation and the Constitution.
I believe she said the Congress had to pass it so that voters would find out what was in it.
Her intent being, the Democrats could talk all they wanted about the “benefits” of the ACA, but until the citizens had it given to them good and hard they wouldn’t appreciate what it would do
forto them.Thank you for the clarification. That would be more consistent with her current position that legislators (well some legislators anyway) are allowed to see the details of how they are going to overturn the 2016 presidential election, but she does not think the people who voted in the 2016 presidential election deserve to see the process of how that election is to be overturned.
[I’m with a previous commenter who wasn’t particularly concerned about the legal rights of the president, but I am concerned with the moral (if not legal) rights of the voters who voted in the 2016 presidential election to know how and why their votes are going to be nullified.]
I wonder if an impeached (but not removed) Trump would take legal action against the House Democrats.
I know, I know, on what possible grounds? None that I could see, maybe slander?
Nothing about Trump is orthodox, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see an unorthodox response to a group of people he would see as having grievously wronged his reputation . . .
I’d really like an inquiry into term limits, and why we don’t have them.
That’s might quite literally be the only way to prevent the rise of creatures like The Pelosian. It’s hard to fathom how these people would exist, otherwise. And we give them these powers, willingly, that creates the disasters we all have to live with, later, like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, unfunded pension liabilities for federal, state, and municipal employees, Obama”care”, and your local DMV.