Bizarre, Congress, Constitutional Law, Politics

Pelosi Accuses Trump and Colleagues Of Defining Domestic Enemies

220px-nancy_pelosiI have previously condemned both sides in our raging politics for labeling their opponents as “traitors,” “terrorists,” and “enemies.”  That overheated rhetoric is continuing this week with Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling not just President Trump but her own congressional colleagues “enemies of the state.” I have been highly critical of President Trump in his use of such language. I also have long been critical of Pelosi’s conduct as Speaker, including her ripping up the State of the Union. This attack is particularly egregious from a sitting Speaker who represents the body as a whole. If we cannot agree on condemning even this language, we have lost any sense of decorum or decency in our public debate.

In a Monday interview with MSNBC host Ayman Mohyeldin, Pelosi was asked about the controversy over the postal service and mail-in voting. She responded:

“Thank you for the opportunity to say. One thing I’ll say to the American people: Do not pay any attention to Donald Trump. It is his goal to scare people from voting, to intimidate them by saying he’s going to have law enforcement people at the polls, to welcome, in fact, Russian intervention into our election . . . We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And sadly, the domestic enemies to our voting system and our honoring our Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., with their allies in the Congress of the United States.”

Pelosi clearly states that her colleagues are included among the domestic enemies that the House oath that is required as a qualification for office under Article VI, clause 3.

It is a further denigration of our political debate.  However, this is directly calling those who support Trump in Congress to be domestic enemies. Pelosi has previously caused controversies over comments on the floor that were viewed as violating House rules.

Pelosi herself has led efforts to condemnTrump for his “low standards using disgraceful language about Members of Congress.”

This is not a statement on the floor and is not a clear violation of House rules. However, it is a violation, again, of the traditional role of the Speaker. No one expects a Speaker to be a non-partisan, particularly off the floor. However, she is the highest ranking member of the House of Representatives and leads by example. This has been the continuing example of raw and reckless partisanship from the Speaker. I happen to agree with Speaker Pelosi on some of these policy fights. Yet, calling your own members enemies of the state is a reprehensible moment that would be widely condemned in the media if the party affiliation were reversed.

I admit that I may be hopelessly out of touch with the brawling, insulting character of modern politics. I still believe that our leaders should be examples, particularly presidents and Speakers, in their language and conduct. This is a sitting Speaker saying that members who disagree with her are enemies of the State and the very dangers that members are sworn to resist as threatening the nation as a whole.

It is easy to take this free-fall plunge into such damaging and demagogic language. We can yield to the moment and label opposing voices as traitors or we can insist that our leaders meet minimal standards of civility and responsibility. This is neither. If we become accustomed to labeling opposing views as effective treason, it will not be long before people begin to treat such labels literally and demand treating dissent as treason.

Speaker Pelosi should apologize for this attack and reaffirm that there remains some degree of decency and civility that remains in our public debate.

 

298 thoughts on “Pelosi Accuses Trump and Colleagues Of Defining Domestic Enemies”

  1. When will Congress and the FBI investigate which communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) contacted and colluded with China to request release of the corona virus, “The China Flu, 2020,” in this American presidential election year in an attempt to stop the juggernaut that was the Trump campaign, well on its way to an historic, landslide victory in November?

  2. Acting DHS Secretary: “We Have No Authority To Send Federal Agents” (to polling locations)

    Certain States Ban Law Enforcement From Polls

    Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said Sunday that DHS has no authority to send federal agents to oversee polling locations in November, despite President Trump’s vow to have a federal law enforcement presence at the polls on Election Day.

    “That’s not what we do at the Department of Homeland Security,” Wolf said on CNN’s “State of the Union” when asked about Trump’s comments. “We have law enforcement authorities and law enforcement officers at the department. We have express authorities given to us by Congress and this is not one of them.”

    “This is not a mission for the Department of Homeland Security,” Wolf added, noting that he has not had any discussions with Trump about sending federal agents to polling sites.

    Asked about the prospect of Trump requesting DHS send armed agents to polling locations on Election Day, Wolf again stated, “We don’t have any authority to do that at the department.”

    Trump raised alarm last Thursday after saying during an interview on Fox News that he planned to send sheriffs, federal law enforcement and U.S. attorneys to polling locations in November as part of an effort to prevent voter fraud. The pledge immediately prompted scrutiny from voting rights advocates and others, who suggested the vow could amount to illegal voter intimidation.

    Federal law prohibits any conduct intimidating voters. Some states have laws banning law enforcement officials from having a presence at polling sites on Election Day. For example, in Pennsylvania, a state law bars police officers from being at polling locations unless they are there to vote or serve a warrant, according to a memo from the Brennan Center for Justice.

    Edited from: “Acting DHS Chief Says He Has No Authority To Send Agents To Polling Stations After Trump Comments”

    The Hill, 8/23/20
    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    If the DHS has no authority sending Federal Agents to polling locations, Trump was grossly mistaken for thinking that would be an appropriate measure. Why then is Professor Turley condemning Nancy Pelosi’s response to Trump..?? Why is Turley ‘not’ condemning Trump for issuing threats beyond his authority?

    1. Election day is “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November.” Not before. Not after.

      Voters may obtain ballots only on election day if the election is forthright and fair – true absentees may have ballots mailed out on election to be counted later, post facto, in a contested election.

      An election is held in a “place,” at a “time” and in a “manner.”

      Citizens must be given notice of a particular immutable date to avoid corruption of the vote and to allow candidates an opportunity to campaign.

      Democrats want to remove control of the voting process to facilitate their attempts to manipulate, harvest and, otherwise, cheat the vote.

      Democrats incrementally annihilate all logic and rationality.

      Are they fooling you?

  3. Nanshe Peloshe, you just don’t get it, old girl. You have nullified constitutional America. You can’t centrally plan, control the means of production (i.e regulate), redistribute wealth or socially engineer – but you have and you do (of course, the Supreme Court should have contained you long, long ago – back around the time of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, as a matter of fact).
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Article 3, Section 3

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
    ______________________________________________________

    “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.”

    – Oscar Wilde
    ___________

    America’s Socio/Economic Model Replicates Those of China, European Union, Russia, Cuba, Vietnam et al. After Adhering To, Aiding and Comforting The Mortal Enemies of the Constitution

    The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional and has been imposed by traitors committing treason against the Constitution and Bill of Rights, 1789. Liberals have “…[adhered] to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…” most distinctly. Because of the treasonous acts of liberals, executed in concert with global communism and communists, America now precisely replicates the socio/economic models of China, the European Union, Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. The principles, rights and freedoms of the Constitution have been abandoned by traitors committing treason.

    The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

    Per the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Congress has only the power to tax for “…general Welfare…,” the power to regulate only money, commerce and land and naval Forces, and absolutely cannot claim or exercise dominion over private property in any form. Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

  4. Turley, your incredible hypocrisy sometimes leave me speechless. Let’s see, now. Turley complains that Nancy Pelosi violates traditions and fails to lead by example. Just what are you smoking, anyway? How about all of the name-calling by Trump? Do US presidents usually call members of Congress, political opponents and leaders of other countries insulting names? How about accusing the FDA of being the “deep state” because they follow sound, traditional scientific methodology for vaccine and drug approval instead of taking short cuts? Nevertheless, he bullied them into granting emergency approval for convalescent serum, even though it has not been tested, and even though we now know that antibody levels peak and then start dropping to the point where there is no immunity and there are proven cases of re-infection, so there are more questions than answers about the efficacy of convalescent serum. How many presidents have tried to politicize the FDA because they are losing in the polls? How about Trump’s lie about “creating the most-successful economy in history”? Ranking the economic growth of the immediate past 11 presidents, Trump comes in at 7th position, and this is before the pandemic. How about last night’s lie fest, with endless fear-mongering, claiming that unless Trump is elected, anarchy will happen? How about lying about Biden’s position on de-funding the police? He’s against that. How about trying to align Biden and Harris with progressives and other far-left advocates, knowing that they don’t share this vision? How about Trump saying “they’re coming for you”? Who? Biden and Harris? Turley has the gall to complain about Pelosi’s rhetoric? Really?

    Pelosi is correct in saying that the Republicans in Congress are doing nothing to stop Trump from trying to prevent voting by mail by handicapping the USPS, they refused to vote on the covid relief bill because it contains funding for the USPS and since voting is our most-fundamental right, they are indeed enemies of the American people.

    1. Seriously? Do you expect any rational person to believe that?

      Imagine, NUTCHACHA speechless!

      Dang!

      You go, girl!

      1. I don’t know what “that” you think is incredible, but did you forget that Trump said he’d veto any bill to bail out the USPS because it would help prevent voting by mail? If it is convalescent serum, it has not undergone sufficient testing: how long after the donor’s acute phase will there be sufficient antibodies to do any good? How long would passive immunity acquired in this manner protect the recipient? Since the virus has mutated, if it mutates again, would the serum protect the recipient after mutation? What should the dosage be? What side-effects and risks are there? We don’t have the answers to any of these things, and Trump trying to take credit for pushing the FDA for emergency approval of convalescent serum is disingenuous at best. It could be dangerous. He is no scientist, and calls scientists names when they push back against being bullied to do something that is wrong.

        When it comes to rational people, explain how any rational person could support Trump, who seemingly cannot stop lying, whose narcissism is on full display: the US presidency is just another reality TV show. Where are the Republicans? Why do they have no platform, other than “we support whatever Trump says”. How can any rational person fail to be repulsed by this chronic liar, xenophobe, misogynist and racist? While some Republicans are actively working to defeat this mental patient, the others stand by and do nothing. The GOP has become nothing more than the Trump fan club. Trump is a seriously flawed individual. He has no agenda, other than attention, praise and adulation for him. Thanks to him more than 5 million Americans have been sickened and more than 176,000 have died (probably more). He takes no responsibility whatsoever, and the Republicans say nothing.

    2. Natacha, just vote and then go back home and crawl into your safe space.

      I suggest you surround yourself with all of your participation trophies and ribbons so you can cuddle them while you weep.

      Then, go get a job.

  5. It doesn’t take a genius to see who the anarchistic terrorists are, and which party supports the terror – by definition “enemies of the state”!! Vietnam Vet/Military Retiree

    2. Can you imagine a restaurant tolerating this kind of trespassing in flyover? This must be from California. Not out here miss. cops have been called

      I also dont do jack squat because some street urchin tells me too. I would give her the finger and the whole pack of them too, Hey why not the black guy was already throwing the finger

      i Notice that boy they were bullying did not raise his hand when they told him to. She called him racist, yelled in his face and he kept calm and ignored her.

      BLM crazies are making some hard youths out there. If he was not racist before, he prolly is now. He’s a CHAD

      However notice nearby, the fat weakling white guy with the goatee raised his chubby little arm however. Thus signaling that he is a low test, fungus eating soyboy beta loser

      That lad was calm and quiet and strong. Sign him up! There’s job opportunities and room for advancement for young Chads like that.

      for losers like the fat white goateed soyboy who put his chubby little hand up, there is no love and no mercy. let them go to BLM when the chips are down. see how far licking basketball shoes will get ya loser

  7. BTB Said: “Comey announced the rene3wel of the investigation into Hillary 2 weeks before the election…” and he says that helped get Trump elected.

    I think Book is right insofar as it goes.

    What is left out is WHY Comey ‘renewed’ the investigation. It comes down to Anthony Weiner-Man and his computer. It was given to the NYPD for an ordinary sex crimes investigation without knowing it had tens of thousands of Hillary’s emails on it. The FBI could have been smarter. Trump predicted more than a year before that Wiener’s computer would have classified information. He seems to have a secret television that can see into the future. Its called brainpower.

    Once the NYPD had a look and prepared to go public Comey had no choice but to try to draw the poison with a phony investigation. They take months to investigate a handful of emails but Comey went through tens of thousands of them in a few days and concluded Hillary was just fine. Nobody believed it.

    Ultimately, of course, the cause is Hillary Clinton and her attempt to subvert the law by having a private and secret system for handling sensitive and secret information. She should have gone to prison. Many have for much less.

    1. That’s false Young. The FBI had the search warrant and grabbed Wiener’s laptop, not the NYPD.

          1. Book– Rather than wrestle with that issue let’s go to the core:

            Whose confidential and secret emails were on a computer under the control of a pervert who was not even working for the government?

            That is the real problem.

          2. Get your facts right, the NYPD first had computer and then the FBI issued a warrant only after NYPD had notified them of existence of emails. Like my father used to say “being a know it all only confirm your a know nothing fool”

            1. George– That was my recollection too. If the NYPD hadn’t gotten the computer I suspect the FBI would have destroyed the evidence. Comey had to settle with a “nothing of importance there” fraud to try to neutralize the mess. I think the country would be safer if the FBI were dissolved and its agents sent to agricultural stations counting eggs or shoveling manure.

              1. I agree about the whole FBI the organization should be dissolved and agents transfered to US Marshall. Remove upper leadership and review agents service record. But will that happen, yeah right. (Come on Man)

          3. FactCheck is a partisan joke financed by progressive organizations.

            Same applies to Snopes (post divorce), and Wikipedia.

            2 words explain why Dementia Joe will lose.

            “Law” and “Order”.

            You can thank the DNC for condoning lawlessness and disorder, for the loss in November.

            Independents always decide elections, and independents as a whole, do not want lawlessness where they live and work.

            1. Rhodes- FactCheck is a partisan joke financed by progressive organizations.

              That’s why the leftists use it. No interest in truth.

              1. Young, a large portion of leftist support comes from people that do not think and only feel. That is why the left had to create these partisan entities to create the lies for them. It’s sickening to realize that our education has produced such vile people as btb and Needs to be Commited.

              2. So then. for cites, Young and his peanut gallery have Young’s “recollection”.

                OH! Well, why didn’t you say so earlier? Case closed!

      2. Why does every conversation by about white politicians or church leaders turn to their dick?

  8. Pelosi, of course, is indicative of the mediocrity at the apex and center of Congress and of the Democratic Party. She’s never shepherded any consequential legislation through the House. She hasn’t faced any electoral competition since 1987 and has run only one competitive campaign of her own. She’s there due to the patronage of Philip and Sala Burton, who actually did have to compete for that seat. She was briefly and elementary schoolteacher 50-odd years ago. The only agreeable thing you can say about her is that she has a mess of kids. At age 80, she’s the oldest person to have held the position of Speaker. She won’t go away and the House Democratic caucus won’t insist she go away. Her deputy is actually slightly older than she is and has been fartin’ around in public office since 1962.

    Of the 16 people who’ve held the Speaker’s chair in the last 90 years, maybe two had a discernible interest in social and political thought. Three had put in some time in the business world. Maybe one gave up a handsome career to enter electoral politics. The rest have been hackety-hackety-hack-hack-hacks. The job doesn’t attract the admirable.

    The late Henry Fairlie was a great defender of Sam Rayburn, a man who spent far too much time in political office, maintaining he’d used his position ‘to educate his party’, something Tip O’Neill couldn’t do (“O’Neill’s years were when the seed corn was et”). Pelosi has succeeded in making O’Neill look like a colossus of public service.

  9. “The greatest danger to our free system is that the incumbent government use the apparatus of the state…in a way that could affect the outcome of the election” AG Bill Barr ……..Barr said it, and of course they have every plan to use the state to stay in power. And they will use it. Trump-Barr are wanna-be fascist, and they will not be happy until they are.

    1. Information warfare tactic = PROJECTION.

      Democrat party is the party of hate, rage, intolerance, threat, intimidation, destruction, and lies. IF the Dems win the WH and retake the Senate, they will waste no time before they blow up the filibuster and rule like the Totalitarians they are!

  10. Meanwhile, dirt bag Pompeo will address the GOP convention tonight. It turns out he will be the 1st sitting SOS to do so and this will be against DOS guidelines issued last year concerning keeping the Department free of overt partisanship. This is particularly critical to the SOS maintaining a respected position in his dealings with foreign governments.

    Trump lowers another bar. Here’s the guidelines:

    https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/e/e/eed06418-12ee-496f-8476-8c266c53ddb6/8F33EFAA29B676D27832D35876407707.hatch-act.pdf

    1. He’s a cabinet level position. get over it. tough luck. better a straight guy who presents his position clearly than a smarmy self serving schemer like hillary

      John Kerry was a far better SOS than she was

      1. Kurtz, your throw away comment is not worth much response, except to point out Pompeo has been scheming for 2024 since 2017 and it couldn’t be more obvious.

        1. when i say Hillary was a schemer I am making a salient point that has nothing to do with Pompeo except this. He is on board with the POTUS.

          Hillary was a schemer. She undermined many of the peace efforts that Kerry made in the middle east. She was dying to sink us deeper into all the unfolding chaos there and she did, in Syria, and in Libya. I question to what extent Obama really supporter those byzantine schemes or did she just drag him along. I have reason to believe the latter.

          Pompeo is a better SOS just because he is a team player and not a prima donna like Hillary, trying to outshine her boss.

          Also, Pompeo has advanced the president’s agenda of not sinking our troops deeper into messes hither and yon. In this respect, perhaps there is a parallel as well. Kerry’s tenure was a step back from expansion of hot conflicts, and Hillarys was a leap forwards.

          I am sure my Republican friends do not appreciate Kerry as much as I do, and of course, because you are a sworn Hillary cheerleader, neither do you it seems. If you didn’t understand the point, don’t waste your time trying to figure it out now.

  11. Whenever Pelosi makes an accusation, it is tantamount to an admission of what the Sinister Kleptocracy is planning or already committing.

    1. I thought it was touching when madam speaker presented a folded flag to Floyds family. A folded flag to the relatives of a street thug. What an insult to people who have have earned that honor.

  12. Democrats and Republicans are each preparing their side to reject the election results – Washington Examiner

    “Both Republican and Democratic leaders have finally come to the bipartisan consensus that may see our electoral process come undone. Both are preparing their voters to reject the result of the upcoming presidential election.”

    Speaking to former campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri, 2016 loser Hillary Clinton begged current Democratic nominee Joe Biden not to concede come November.

    “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances,” said the wife of Epstein associate Bill Clinton. “Because I think this is gonna drag out, and, eventually, I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.”

    Although Biden hasn’t adopted such unhinged rhetoric, his entire party has embraced a conspiracy theory that President Trump is actively rigging the election by manipulating the Postal Service. It’s an absurd contention if only because the Postal Service is too independent for him to have that power, and an absurd contention that Trump either teased in jest or genuinely seems to believe.

    During surprise remarks at the Republican National Convention, Trump went on his own unhinged tirade against mail-in ballots.

    “The only way they can take this election away from us is if this is a rigged election,” Trump said in comments eerily echoing the former first lady. “What they’re doing is using COVID to steal an election. They’re using COVID to defraud the American people, all of our people, of a fair and free election.”

    For three years, Democrats subjected the nation to Russiagate conspiracy theories to convince themselves that foreign interference was to blame for their loss in the 2016 election. The attempt to delegitimize our elections has long been in the making, but increasingly, we’re watching it become a bipartisan arms race. The peaceful transfer of power is foundational to the republic, but now, we’re careening toward losing it.

    You think the riots and arsons in the streets are bad now? Just wait until one side doesn’t get its way. If adults on both sides of the aisle don’t take the temperature down now, it’ll be nothing less than a civil war.”

    1. I’m expecting the fraud to be so extensive that we won’t know the actual winner of the presidential electors or a crucial bloc of seats in Congress. And, of course, it takes officials in some states forever to tally postal ballots.

      If our political class were worth a pitcher of warm spit, we wouldn’t be having trouble with elections administration. (Of course we know who doesn’t want clean elections).

  13. The real domestic enemies of this country are the ones who are trying to say it’s safe to go to a liquor store to buy liquor but you can’t go vote in person KNOWING that there have already been many instances of vote fraud in the US with mail in ballots. The real domestic enemies are telling you that gun confiscation, larger and more intrusive government, redistributing the wealth, destroying Americas energy independence, is a good thing. The real domestic enemies are the ones telling you the police are the enemy, a Marxist tactic, while hiding behind the safety of their armed security. The domestic enemies of this country are the ones telling you that the riots, looting and violence are peaceful protests and at the same time make it illegal to protest on the streets they live on. The real domestic enemies of this country are the ones who hold up Bills focused solely on Covid relief for families and children in order to force trillion dollars bills on the country packed with bail outs for liberal cities that driven their economies into the ground. The real enemies of this country are the liberal politicians and their puppet masters like BLM, Soros and other groups that hate this country and despise Our constitution.

  15. Pelosi is correct. Trump and his supporters are enemies of the state —– the deep state.

      1. “The “deep state” got Trump elected”
        *******************************
        Okay you’ve got crazy all to yourself! You win today.

        1. Comey announced the rene3wel of the investigation into Hillary 2 weeks before the election while he, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, McCabe, and Bruce Mohr – probably more conspirators – protected Trump from the public knowing about the investigation into his campaign. If that had been announced by Comey or leaked, Trump would have been toast.

          They protected Trump and knee capped Hillary. That’s a clear, unassailable fact.

              1. Well, CommitToHonestDiscussion, you could start by using only one Avatar account and ditch your VPN connection provided by your handlers. If you start there and come back to us when you are interested in doing things by the book and commit to honest discussion, you might be taken seriously

                Go Gators

                2. Funny.

                  I don’t have CTHD’s energy – neither do you – or patience.

          2. BTB, Durham is on all of that.

            That is not going to work out well for you.

            Now, go get a real job.

            1. Yes Rhodes, we’ve been hearing for several years now – Olly has been keeping us up on it – how the axe is going to fall and how unhappy we liberals will all be. It’s going to start with a McCabe indictment, so I’m on the lookout for that.

              By the way, i have inside info on a meteor that is going to hit Mara-Lago and then skip up and hit 5th Ave in NYC near 55th Street. So there!

              1. Olly has been keeping us up on it – how the axe is going to fall and how unhappy we liberals will all be.

                Every time you post that garbage, you reveal just how unprincipled you are. There was a time not that long ago where citizens of this country would reasonably disagree on policy, but we were united against the government’s abuse of power. We even had journalists doing their duty to expose and report on those activities. Those days are long gone.

                I asked you the other day what your opinion was regarding the evidence proving abusive practices involving Crossfire Hurricane and Crossfire Razor. And true to form, you’ve defended the practices. That puts you and others that believe in the weaponization of our government agencies against their political enemies, a palpable threat to the rights of all citizens. You’re advocating banana republic lawfare and what is most egregious, you stupidly presume once that abuse of power is unleashed, you won’t be in the crosshairs.

                Our founding generation documented in agonizing detail what they suffered at the hands of the British government, before saying enough is enough. These were not stupid people. They were perhaps ignorant of how to restore their rights, but it took a revolutionary war to accomplish that. We’ve been piling up our own long train of abuses and your loyalist support of the abusers marks you as an enemy to all our rights and our liberty.

  16. -Trump has stated, for the record, on the record, recorded numerous times, that the only way the Democrats can win in November is by cheating. He said that last night.

    -Now, it is an accepted fact by a bipartisan Republican lead Senate committee, that the Russians assisted in Trump’s win in 2016 and every intelligence agency has stated that Russia is at it again.

    -The Republican lead Senate committee stated that the Republican election machine received the Russian assistance ‘willingly’. Voting by mail is independent of any political persuasion.

    -Republicans as well as Democrats can vote by mail. Trump has stated that if voting by mail is made convenient then Republicans will never win, again. Trump has said that only the Democrats can cheat.

    -This is your champion, making ludicrous excuses for losing before he loses.

    -Not fit for any office.

    -Must go.

    -Bounce his fat …..

    By any stretch of the perverse imagination of a Republican, no one on the Democrat side barely approaches the disgrace that is Trump.

    1. I seem to recall that it was the DNC and Hillary’s campaign that financed the Russian disinformation known as the “dossier” hoping it would hurt Trump in the election, and then doubled down on using that Russian document in order to try and sabotage his presidency.

  17. Meanwhile, in other news:

    L. Luppen: “The criminal information filed in Hawaii implicating but not charging [Deputy] RNC Finance Elliott Broidy (Person B) with FARA violations in connection with lobbying Trump to squash the 1MDB investigation and to remove Guo Wengui to China–first reported by WSJ. …”
    https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1298261544761880583 — the tweet has a link to the charging document and an image of some of the relevant text, and the thread includes more info [e.g., “Broidy and Steve Wynn (Person H, “an internationally successful businessman”) met on Wynn’s yacht and called Trump together about deporting Guo Wengui (PRC National A), who also has a yacht–on which Steve Bannon was recently apprehended”] and a link to reporting

    A couple of the responses:
    Will Rosecrans: “Remember when Steve Wynn, Elliott Broidy, Michael Cohen, & current US Postmaster General Louis DeJoy were the RNC’s four finance chairs? It would be weird if DeJoy was the only one of the four that didn’t have legal problems from his work on the campaign from before he was PMG.”
    Dan Friedman: “Other than Broidy, the other alleged participants in this scheme, Jho Low, Pras, former DOJ employee George Higginbotham, and now Nickie Lum Davis, have been charged. And Davis’ criminal information is all about Broidy, indicating she is cooperating against him. Bad for Broidy.”
    Re: “first reported by WSJ,” Marcy Wheeler also corrects that it was first noted by Seamus Hughes of the Program on Extremism at George Washington University.

    1. Interesting, CTHD, finally brings something up which is not a simplistic rhetorical point against Orane man.

      Observe how the PRC officials will work anybody they can

      https://apnews.com/58dd061f2a7fbc743f770f632f3ad49d

      Deporting Guo Wenghui, an asylee, means sentencing him to death. CCP hates his guts and nobody on earth has damaged them more to the overseas Chinese people in the past year, such as he has, with his deluge of “inside baseball” and endless gossip that certainly has caused them to lose big face. .

      Ergo, no federal court is going to deport Guo, aka, Miles Kwok.

      the fact he is Steve Bannon’s friend and associate will not matter. He is as bona fide an asylum seeker as ever landed on American shores

      that does not mean that FBI won’t attack him with some financial crime, somehow. apparently, WSJ said, a whiles back they stroked him to be an asset, and he refused.
      that is ok; it was ok for FBI to ask. But also ok to say no. An asylee should not have to go to work for FBI as a spy to take advantage of the US asylum laws just like everybody else who can, according to law

      but the CCP has already probably given FBI lots of negative info on Guo. They won’t stop until they get him.
      If Miles one day chokes on a chicken bone, you can bet the ccp made it happen.

      CCP means business. They don’t let billionaires call the shots in the PRC. This is something to ponder.

  18. Pelosi is a total disgrace and should be removed immediately. The thing has nothing of value to offer this Country.

  19. Pelosi is getting desperate and is projecting what her party represents. They spent four days pumping this rhetoric without once condemning the violent protests ravaging the Democrat-run cities. They blame Republicans for Russian disinformation, when it was the Democrat’s that solicited it. They assert it was Trump that used a QPQ with Ukraine, when they have an actual video of it from Biden. They side with China and the WHO and blame Trump for the Wuhan virus.

    There was a time not long ago when both major political parties sought to make the United States the greatest country on the planet. The differences were in policy, not vision. Today, Democrats are willing to burn this country to the ground for the power to transform it into something else altogether. The Democratic party and their militant horde are the operational definition of Enemies of the State.

  20. Pelosi’s statement is unacceptable and is way out of bounds for any member of Congress, she should be formally censured and removed as Speaker of the House.

    1. Do you believe that Trump should also be censured by Congress for his statements (e.g., accusing multiple people of treason)? If not, then you have double standards for political speech.

      1. CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “Do you believe that Trump should also be censured by Congress for his statements (e.g., accusing multiple people of treason)? If not, then you have double standards for political speech.”

        No double standard here. I believe that President Trump should have been censured for some things that he has said. The most notable one was his conversation with the President of Ukraine that gave a political perception of being inappropriate. The Democrats should NOT have tried their blatantly partisan impeachment folly they should have formally censured the President for that, I think they would have gotten bipartisan support for a censure. But no the Democrats are consumed by hate and their bias made them stupid.

        Sorry CTHD, claims of a double standards don’t fit me.

        In fact, I agreed with Jonathan Turley back in early December 2019 when he testified at the House Judiciary Committee and talked about censure instead of impeachment. Later in February 2020 when I wrote the following in response to an answer posted by Chrys Jordan to my question over on Quora:

        “They didn’t have sufficient evidence to support articles of impeachment, period. They should have stopped their impeachment goal and chosen a different political path like censure, which I think they would have likely gotten some level of bipartisan support for. The DC Democrats allowed their hate and bias to make them stupid, they bet the farm on a bluff, and they’re going to loose.”

        Jonathan Turley was right about censuring the President instead of impeachment, I was right about censuring the President instead of impeachment and I’m right about about censuring the Nancy Pelosi now. You don’t have to agree with me.

        1. Steve, you can’t get away with that! You said Pelosi should be censured and removed form office, but for Trump only censure and no removal from office. Do you want to explain how that is not a double standard?

          PS Possibly intemperate language without other consequences is not equal to using the power of the presidency corruptly and at damage to our interests – as expressed by Congress in their awarding of foreign aid – for personal advantage by the President is a much worse act. As to proving it, the GOP senators voted for the first time in our long history to have no witnesses at a Senate trial for impeachment.

          1. BtB, Steve only said “removed as Speaker,” not removed from office as a Rep.

            1. Good point, but still not equivalent penalties. I’m sure if possible, Trump’s demotion to VP would have been a better outcome than his staying President.

          2. By the Book wrote, “Steve, you can’t get away with that! You said Pelosi should be censured and removed form office, but for Trump only censure and no removal from office. Do you want to explain how that is not a double standard?”

            Actually I wrote that she should be “formally censured and removed as Speaker of the House”. This is in no way a double standard as CommitToHonestDiscussion was discussing and not a double standard in what you are discussing either.

            It’s clear that I think both should be censured for some of the things they have said but the President can only be removed from office by means of impeachment where Nancy Pelosi can be removed from her position as Speaker of the House (not removed from Congress) by a majority vote of Democrats in the House.

            Again; no double standard.

            1. Steve, that;s BS. Removal from office is removal from office. The means are irrelevant to the conclusion.

              I note you also don’t respond to my other point about the seriousness of each charge. Pelosi spoke in public and her words had no direct consequence for anyone. Trump thwarted the will of Congress, withheld what one must consider necessary funds from an ally at war, and all in the interests of denigrating his presumed most important political rival.

              1. By the Book wrote, “Steve, that’s BS. Removal from office is removal from office. The means are irrelevant to the conclusion.”

                No BtB it’s not irrelevant.

                It is written in the constitution that the President of the United states can only be removed from office via impeachment for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” there aren’t provisions in there that say he can be removed from office via impeachment for saying things like calling his opposition traitors. There are no equivalent constitutional provisions for the removal of the Speaker of the House which is accomplished with a vote from the party in the majority. Pelosi said that the Republicans – one and all – are “domestic enemies” and she should be removed for that remark.  There are rules of decorum that the House must follow while in debate on the House floor but how the hell do they expect these rules to be followed when the Speaker of the House publicly calls all the Republicans domestic enemies?  As far as I’m concerned Pelosi has broken with the intent of house rules of decorum and has, by her own words, created an environment where the rules will not matter and for this break in decorum – this MUST be directly addressed in the House of Representatives!  

                The double standard is the difference in the methods of removal from office, no double standard on my part.  

                You don’t have to like my opinion.

                By the Book wrote, “Trump thwarted the will of Congress, withheld what one must consider necessary funds from an ally at war, and all in the interests of denigrating his presumed most important political rival.”

                I’m not going down your false equivalence rabbit hole with you.

                  1. This is absurd x XXii wrote, “Actually, the Democratic Party is an enemy of the Republic.”

                    You’re welcome to your opinion.

                    Now, if you can’t directly reply to what I wrote then go troll elsewhere with your spam.

                2. There are rules of decorum that the House must follow while in debate on the House floor but how the hell do they expect these rules to be followed when the Speaker of the House publicly calls all the Republicans domestic enemies?

                  You’re welcome to your opinion, but you may want to get your facts correct. I believe Pelosi made her contemptible comment outside the House chamber.

                  1. OLLY wrote, “You’re welcome to your opinion, but you may want to get your facts correct. I believe Pelosi made her contemptible comment outside the House chamber.”

                    You misunderstand me, what I wrote was in no way implying that she said that on the House floor.

                    “How the hell do they expect these rules to be followed when the Speaker of the House publicly calls all the Republicans domestic enemies”; she called all of her Republican colleagues domestic enemies and it doesn’t matter where she the words it was a deplorable public accusation and the consequences of her accusations will ultimately destroy decorum on the House floor.

                    1. There are rules of decorum that the House must follow while in debate on the House floor but…

                      Yeah, I understood you quite well. These rules that you’re referring to apply on the House floor. Her comments, while disgusting, weren’t on the House floor.

                3. Steve, that’s like saying Ford brake pads won’t fit on a Chevy. so we shouldn’t expect them both to stop the vehicle..

                  Clearly your opinion is formed by your relative anger at the two, not the available mechanisms. Given that obvious truth, your unwillingness to try and justify those two levels of anger – I explained my reasoning – kills further discussion but does not prove your point.

                  1. By the Book wrote, “Steve, that’s like saying Ford brake pads won’t fit on a Chevy. so we shouldn’t expect them both to stop the vehicle..

                    Clearly your opinion is formed by your relative anger at the two, not the available mechanisms. Given that obvious truth, your unwillingness to try and justify those two levels of anger – I explained my reasoning – kills further discussion but does not prove your point.”

                    You’ve clearly ignored everything I’ve written in our conversation.

                    I’ll take your comment for the obvious ad hominem it was intended to be.

                    Cya later.

                    1. Steve, my response was no more ad hominem than your “rabbit hole” avoidance mechanism. Sorry you couldn’t answer the bell.

                      Cya

        2. “No double standard here”

          Great. That’s why my comment was phrased as a condition (if … then) statement. But you make no mention of his multiple accusations of “treason,” which is actually more comparable to Pelosi’s statement. Are you calling for Trump to be censured for that?

          “The Democrats should NOT have tried their blatantly partisan impeachment folly”

          Sure they should have. The House actually should have included more Articles of Impeachment than they did, as Trump has engaged in several impeachable acts (e.g., emoluments clause violations; obstruction of justice as outlined in the Mueller report; campaign finance law violations in the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and knowingly making a false declaration on his required financial disclosure form and the certifying it to be “true, correct and complete,” when he chose not to include his debt to Michael Cohen). We even have more evidence of his impeachable acts now (e.g., in its recent bipartisan report, the SSCI noted that Trump had lied to Mueller under penalty of perjury).

          The Republicans — refusing to call witnesses in the trial — were at least as “blatantly partisan” as the Democrats were, if not moreso.

          1. CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “But you make no mention of his multiple accusations of “treason,” which is actually more comparable to Pelosi’s statement. Are you calling for Trump to be censured for that?”

            If Trump is calling members of Congress traitors without evidence to support the claim then yes Congress should censure him.

            1. Trump has accused Democratic members of Congress of treason, and he has also accused private citizens of treason (click on the links in the article if you want more evidence of the individual statements): https://web.archive.org/web/20200604135558/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/27/president-who-cries-treason/
              And that

              Treason is a specific crime, and I interpret it as narrower than “traitor” (i.e., someone guilty of treason is a traitor, but someone could be a traitor without being guilty of the specific crime of treason), and he has presented no evidence of it as far as I can tell.

              Nor is that article a complete list. For example, in June, he accused Obama of treason: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/503993-trump-says-obama-may-have-committed-treason

              1. Your Washington Post article is behind a paywall.

                See if you can copy and paste the specific information where he called member(s) of congress traitors.

                My opinion stands; If President Trump has called members of Congress traitors then he better provide proof to support this accusation or he should be censured by Congress.

                1. It shouldn’t be behind a paywall. It’s an Internet Archive (Wayback Machine) copy. It was archived multiple times, so try this one instead, which was also updated: https://web.archive.org/web/20200711045536if_/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/27/president-who-cries-treason/
                  I cannot copy and paste what you want, because there’s a list of examples, and every bullet in the list links to evidence on another page, and and I’m not going to click on each and copy from each on your behalf. I can and will copy the list for you:

                  “Trump floated his first treason accusation in January 2018 against then-FBI agent Peter Strzok. Since then, Trump has floated treason allegations against:
                  * Former president Barack Obama.
                  * Congressional Democrats (The White House later said Trump was “joking”).
                  * The news media.
                  * The author of an anonymous op-ed.
                  * Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
                  * Former FBI director James B. Comey.
                  * Former top FBI official Andrew McCabe.
                  * Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.).
                  * The attorney for the Ukraine whistleblower.
                  * The Justice Department under the Obama administration.
                  * A leader of Black Lives Matter.”

                  1. Thanks for the new link. That link worked but when I follow the links within to see why they were making the claim I got stuck behind a paywall again. I don’t just take the word of the Washington Post that they are telling the unbiased truth, I want the claims supported.

                    1. Needs to be Committed claimed “Trump has accused” which is quite a definitve statement. She supplied no quotes. Trump hedged his bets and one can’t trust the Washington Post. However, the WP got the quote correctly and in context here it is.

                      “I’m not telling anybody what to do. It’s up to Bill Barr and Bull Durham,” Trump said Sunday, before criticizing those involved in the Russia investigation. “I can tell you, from my standpoint, they’re guilty on so many different things, but they’re really guilty — you could call it treason.”

                      That is different than accusing someone of treason.

                      One can only base their replies on what the poster said and the article one is referred to.

                    2. They aren’t all links to Washington Post articles. For example, the Obama claim links to an archived copy of https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2020/june/exclusive-interview-with-president-trump-they-were-spying-on-my-campaign

                      Also, people often create multiple archived copies for a given link, so you can go to the homepage, https://archive.org/web/ and check whether there are other archived copies that aren’t paywalled for you. Or you can just do an internet search on something like [“Trump” “Congressional Democrats” “treason”] to find other news reports about it (for example, when I do that search, the top result is from Roll Call).

              2. My opinion stands; If President Trump has called members of Congress traitors or treason then he better provide proof to support this accusation or he should be censured by Congress.

                There Democrats that have called the President a traitor, what do you think should be done to those members of Congress?

                1. Steve,

                  You haven’t presented evidence for your claim (“There Democrats that have called the President a traitor”), and I’ll note again that “traitor” is not synonymous with claiming that someone committed the specific crime of “treason.” Trump has repeatedly accused people of “treason.”

                  I’m not calling for censure for either Trump OR Pelosi OR others. I was simply asking you about censure, since you brought it up with Pelosi.

                  I did call for Trump to be impeached for multiple high crimes, including:
                  * his attempt to bribe the President of Ukraine (for a discussion of the crime of bribery and how it corresponds to Article I of the articles of impeachment: https://twitter.com/jedshug/status/1221998767295160322 )
                  * domestic and foreign emoluments clause violations
                  * obstruction of justice as outlined in the Mueller report
                  * campaign finance law violations in the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, and knowingly making a false declaration on his 2017 OGE financial disclosure form and then certifying it to be “true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge,” after knowingly omitting his debt to Michael Cohen

                  1. CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “You haven’t presented evidence for your claim (“There Democrats that have called the President a traitor”),”

                    That’s a fair point. I’ll see if I can find it in the impeachment hearings and trial transcripts but I’ve gotta find them first.

                    Did you watch all of the hearings and the trial, I did.

                    P.S. Sounds like you swallowed the Democratic impeachment propaganda. That’s sad.

                    1. Yes, I watched the hearings and the trial, and I also wrote my Rep., who was on the HJC.

                      You don’t quote anything from me that you consider “impeachment propaganda,” and I gave you a link to a law professor’s discussion of how Article I corresponds to the bribery statute.

                      If you want evidence for one of my claims, just quote it and ask for evidence instead of assuming that I’ve “swallowed … propaganda.”

              3. “Trump has accused ”

                Needs to be Committed lies again. Even the WP article provided by this dunce doesn’t say Trump accused X of treason.

      2. They bypassed censure and went straight for impeachment. So according to you, the House should convene and on a 2/3’s majority vote for expulsion. That of course will never happen, similar to the Senate not voting to remove Trump from office.

        1. OLLY, I don’t consider Pelosi’s statement as equivalent to Trump’s multiple impeachable acts.
          I consider Pelosi’s statement similar to Trump’s multiple accusations of “treason,” none of which have been censured.

          1. Please detail the “multiple impeachable acts” which even the partisan, evidence-challenged House Dims haven’t thought up.

            1. CTHD detailed her opinion of what were impeachable acts; none of which an army of fire-breathing lawyers deemed there to be sufficient evidence to charge, let alone prosecute. CTHD is proving to be CommittedToHerDerangement.

              1. Limiting the charges was a political decision, not a legal one. There are no legal limits to impeachment charges.

              2. OLLY, you mistake your false inference for an implication on their end. They neither stated nor implied that there was insufficient evidence of other impeachable acts. They made a political choice not to bring charge all of Trump’s impeachable acts. Some Democrats — both in Congress and regular citizens like me — strongly disagreed with that choice.

                Your attempted insults continue to say more about you than me.

      3. CommitToHonestDiscussion,
        You should also consider going over to EthicsAlarms.com and join in the discussions they have over there as an addition to the time you spend here. I think you would offer some decent countering opinions and you seem to argue well, I think you would enjoy it.
        Steve

        1. Thanks, but I should cut back my time commenting rather than increase it. At some point, maybe I’ll check it out to see if it’s better than this.

Comments are closed.