Thirty years after the late D.C. Mayor Marion Barry’s famous statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that a Salon owner set her up in an embarrassing incident where Pelosi was shown not just violating San Francisco’s pandemic laws in getting her hair done but not wearing a mask while doing it. Pelosi refused to take responsibility for the violation (including the failure to wear a mask) and, in the tape below, only took responsibility to “failing for a set up.” She added “I think that this salon owes me an apology, for setting me up.” The Salon owner, Erica Kious, has stated that she expects to close eSalon after receiving a torrent of death threats and hostile massages after Pelosi’s allegation. The question is whether she could actually sue for defamation.
Speaker Pelosi has previously used the eSalon, according to Kious, and was shown below on Monday getting her hair down despite a ban on salons for such appointments.
While not addressing her failure to wear a mask, Pelosi publicly attacked the Salon.
Pelosi’s lawyer Matthew Soleimanpour further made damaging statements about Kious: “The fact that Ms. Kious is now objecting to Speaker Pelosi’s presence at eSalon, and from a simple surface-level review of Ms. Kious’ political leanings, it appears Ms. Kious is furthering a set-up of Speaker Pelosi for her own vain aspirations.”
Carla Marinucci, a senior Politico reporter covering California, made her own veiled allegation in suggesting that the tape itself might be illegal: “Have to ask upon seeing this: Is it legal in CA — a ‘two party consent’ state — to videotape someone in a private home or business without their consent?” That reference to the politics of the owner further suggests an improper political hit job.
Marinucci’s question is not defamatory, though it is curious that the focus was on the legality of having the security camera footage as opposed to Pelosi’s conduct.
The incident was reminiscent of Chicago’s mayor, Lori Lightfoot, getting a haircut after warning Chicagoans that they cannot go to barbers or salons in a mocking tone. For Pelosi, the incident was particularly embarrassing after just blasting President Donald Trump for setting a “bad example”in allowing people to gather for his nomination acceptance speech without masks or social distancing. Pelosi was also previously criticized when the pandemic was unfolding for calling people to Chinatown in San Francisco to demonstrate.
In this case, Pelosi is suggesting that she might have been defamed or shown in a false light by being set up while Kious could claim to have been defamed due to the allegation of a politically motivate set up. In liberal San Francisco, such an allegation is particularly deadly for a business. A hair cut is certainly not in the league of using crack with Marion Barry. Yet, in San Francisco it may be worse to be accused of enabling a Republican attack on Nancy Pelosi than enabling a crack session with her.
Kious is likely a public figure under Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974) and its progeny of cases. The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” A limited-purpose public figure status applies if someone voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself” or allows himself to become part of a controversy “as a fulcrum to create public discussion.” Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979). Her status as a salon owner alone would not trigger this status but her releasing the video and doing an interview on Fox would make her a public figure of limited public figure.
Pelosi is obviously a public figure. Indeed, arguably the third highest public official in the United States as third in line for the presidency.
The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Ironically, this is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written and he is precisely the type of plaintiff that the opinion was meant to deter. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, West must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth. The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures.
California recognizes categories of per se defamation including alleging (1) a criminal offense; (2) a loathsome disease; (3) matter incompatible with his or her business, trade, profession, or office; or (4) serious sexual misconduct. See Cal. Civ. Code § 45a; Yow v. National Enquirer, Inc. 550 F.Supp.2d 1179, 1183 (E.D. Cal. 2008).
In the very least, Kious has been accused of a matter “incompatible with business, trade, profession, or office. Pelosi has also been accused for such misconduct. (I am going leave the suggestion of criminality in one-party taping as meritless since this is a business where security cameras are usually posted and obvious).
For Kious, “truth is a defense.” While Pelosi said she was set up, she was in violation of San Francisco’s law and did fail to wear a mask.
For Pelosi, it gets tougher. Her comments allegedly triggered threats and contributed or caused the likely closure of the salon. The hair stylist Jonathan DeNardohas insisted that the owner knew about the appointment. Kious said that she learned about it after it was set up.
Truth again can be defense but, unlike the Pelosi allegation of violating local laws on getting an indoor haircut and not wearing a mark (which is clearly true), this would be a matter for a jury. It is ultimately a question of motivation.
The fact is that it could be presented as a viable defamation claim but, because of her status as a public figure, it would be difficult under the higher standard. Complication this more is the heavy layer of political opinion during an election season. Thus, my view is that a defamation claim is viable but challenging.
I am disturbed that you are stating that the salon owner is now a public figure. She is by no means a public figure any more than ANY ONE in the US is a public figure – which means no one can ever sue for slander. The salon owner reported what happened in recognition of the hypocrisy of a public figure who thinks she is “more equal” than others (Pelosi may relate well to Orwell’s pigs it seems!)
SBG– I think you become a “public figure” and powerless to sue the instant a prominent Democrat defames you for exposing their criminal and embarrassing acts.
That’s ‘equal justice’ under Democrat rules. Welcome to the Pelosi Soviet comrade.
Pelosi came from Baltimore. There hasn’t been a Republican member of the city council there since the 1930’s. This thing of the democrats ruining cities has been going on for a long time.
Independent, are you saying that after her family destroyed Baltimore she moved to SF?
It certainly looks that way.
Commit displays part of a pattern here. Something reflects badly on Democrats or their ruinous policies and Commit jumps in with several long screeds intended to direct our attention elsewhere.
It is almost as if she hopes to suppress anything exposing Democrats’ ruinous policies and scarcely concealed contempt for their own constituents.
“Commit jumps in with several long screeds intended to direct our attention elsewhere.”
***********************
The saving grace is nobody of consequence around here reads he/she/it. And of course, we all know what a sophist he/she/it is.
Young and mespo don’t have the juice or balls to debate commit and that’s obvious, so the insults are just 2 old guys on the sidelines talking about how they’d do it if they wanted to.
Commit scoots away or lies when caught in a mistake. It’s like dealing with a lunatic ranting on the sidewalk while wearing sandwich boards saying “The world is coming to an end” and “Democrats are saints who can do no wrong”.
Sort of like you, too, come to think of it.
No, she doesn’t. She stays cool, posts data and links and always responds.
Commit said the Lacrosse boys were found not guilty and not found innocent.
In fact, in a televised proceeding the Attorney General dismissed the charges and declared the boys innocent. When this was pointed out Commit vanished on that subject. Others have seen the same on other subjects. Jay said Commit is not an honest interlocutor and I agree.
True enough but I don’t debate with bookie either, just pointing up his voluminous errors of fact and logic is enough.
Oh, the horror, I was wrong about something!
I’m human and make mistakes. I generally try to acknowledge them.
Let me guess: you didn’t actually present any evidence for your claim about the Duke lacrosse team, and you expected me to take your word for it. Let me also guess: you insulted me in another part of the comment, and I chose to disengage for that reason. I could be wrong about one or both of these guesses; we’ll find out if you actually link to the exchange. If you presented actual evidence then or present it now, and if I said something false, I’ll have no problem admitting I was wrong.
What I find really funny in this is that you don’t hold yourself or your friends here to the same standards as you hold me. Why not?
Young, you are not the only one that gets that impression.
Lies don’t equal a lack of comprehension on your end.
LOL that you complain about me quoting Squeeky’s use of “old shrew” (about Pelosi) back to her, with you claiming “Commit quickly fell into sexism, ageism, looksism and the like while attempting to undermine Squeeky,” while you post insults about “a lunatic ranting on the sidewalk …” Should I respond in kind with you too, Young? I’ll assume that you’re projecting.
Still waiting for you to quote or link to examples of me doing what you claim by “Commit scoots away or lies when caught in a mistake.” If I do it as much as you claim, you should be able to give multiple examples just from my comments on this column. What are you waiting for?
Do you want me to give you some examples of me acknowledging my mistakes? Here are two (since Turley limits links to 2 per comment):
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/07/barr-confirms-details-that-park-clearing-was-unrelated-to-church-photo-op/comment-page-1/#comment-1963354
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/14/fbi-lawyer-in-russian-investigation-to-plead-guilty-for-false-statement/comment-page-2/#comment-1990618 (this is an example of me pointing out my mistake simply because I realized it on my own)
I don’t know whether you truly believe what you claim, even though you’re having such a hard time quoting or linking to examples, or if you don’t believe it but are saying it just to insult. I suppose neither alternative would surprise me about you.
Big mess!! Curious to know who are the people of consequence around here? Sticking to your standard form of discourse, you can belch out the initials.
Mark,
The other day Kamala Harris stated the violence we’re seeing in American cities won’t stop before or after election. She went further and said it shouldn’t stop. Then yesterday, Gov. Cuomo said the following:
Forget bodyguards, he [Trump] better have an army if he thinks he’s going to walk down the streets in New York. He is persona non grata in New York City, and I think he knows that, and he’ll never come back to New York, because New Yorkers will never forget how gratuitously mean he has been.
My question is; are these statements any different from Mafia-style protection racketeering? First they enable rampant crime and violence and then support it continuing if they are opposed.
LOL that you think me posting a comment “suppress[es] anything.”
Truly bizarre on your end. Especially given that I posted more than one comment about Turley’s column. I think you’re the one who “displays part of a pattern,” misrepresenting my actual behavior.
Pelosi uses “little people” ilike pawns…for their pleasure. Blaming the salon owner is like blaming the rape victim. Was it Lewinsky or Clinton that was to blame for their affair? Clinton, like Pelosi, was the most powerful person in the land. It is always wrong, when the powerful use the powerless and then blame the powerless when caught.
Remember Leona Helmsley. “Taxes are for the little people”. So is not being able to go to a beauty salon.
Salon owner Natasha Fatale turns out to be a Russian hacker affiliated with the KGB (disbanded in 1991).
She takes her orders from notorious handler Boris Badenov.
Ah, those pesky Russians again.
Classic answer: “I take responsibility for being setup”. Remember some other woman saying: “if I had to do it over I wouldn’t”. It’s never them.
Pelosi stretched the rules. The rat getting all this to Foxnews is a Trump maggot. Pelosi is pulling a Trump in denying and accusing. So, nothing new here but compare this horrific scandal to Trump’s idiocy, slander, lies, accusations on a daily basis that include people and events in higher places and vastly more critically important situations. If this is what Republicans have on Democrats, then pathetic. Pelosi took her mask off while getting a hair cut. Is this all you got? Trump was against wearing masks on a national basis for months. Trump suggested looking into injecting bleach. Trump is a mentally sick person.
Trump suggests voters cast ballots twice, which if done intentionally is illegal
The president encouraged people to vote twice — once by mail and once in person — to test the protections intended to guard against double voting. Intentionally voting twice is illegal, and in many states, including North Carolina, it is a felony.
White House orders review aimed at blocking federal funding from places Trump labels ‘anarchist jurisdictions’
The presidential memo directs the White House Office of Management and Budget to specifically review federal funding that goes to Portland, New York City, and Washington, D.C.
And Pelosi got a hair cut….
Issac– “Pelosi stretched the rules.”
***
No. Pelosi broke the law. The same law which others without Democrat Privilege would be punished.
Like I wrote, if this is all you got, then Pathetic. Trump should be in the slammer for his mouth, encouraging people to commit felonies, utter imbecility. And, what’s worse, he’s President of the most powerful country on earth. Yeah, let’s test it out: vote twice-for me, inject bleach, take this unproven drug, don’t wear masks, ignore the medical profession and listen to me-the smartest guy in the world-I was tested, ……
Cuomo “stretched the rules” when he killed thousands by ordering infected bodies into nursing homes where they transmitted the disease and killed the most vulnerable.
Dahmer ‘stretched the rules” when he kidnapped and ate young men.
Lies do not become you.
Saying something often enough doesn’t make it the truth.
I’m gonna vote early and often and I’m not getting a haircut.
“I’m not getting a haircut.”
********
Judging by your posts I didn’t think you would.
Spoken like someone who’s not been to any hair salons since Covid.
You are not allowed to remove your mask when your hair is being shampooed or cut–there’s no reason to remove it! If the hairstylist has to trim where the mask loops are attached, then the loops are briefly detached by the hairstylist or patron and the patron is required to hold the mask portion against the face until the loops can be reapplied. And there’s no way that the patron is allowed to walk away from the chair without a mask, and certainly not while walking from one room to another or even across the same room.
The second * is the interesting text.
** Data to inform the definition of close contact are limited. Factors to consider when defining close contact include proximity, the duration of exposure (e.g., longer exposure time likely increases exposure risk), and whether the exposure was to a person with symptoms (e.g., coughing likely increases exposure risk). While research indicates masks may help those who are infected from spreading the infection, there is less information regarding whether masks offer any protection for a contact exposed to a symptomatic or asymptomatic patient. Therefore, the determination of close contact should be made irrespective of whether the person with COVID-19 or the contact was wearing a mask. Because the general public has not received training on proper selection and use of respiratory PPE, it cannot be certain whether respiratory PPE worn during contact with an individual with COVID-19 infection protected them from exposure. Therefore, as a conservative approach, the determination of close contact should generally be made irrespective of whether the contact was wearing respiratory PPE, which is recommended for health care personnel and other trained users, or a mask recommended for the general public.
So basically, they are stating that regardless if a covid person has a mask on or not, you need to quarantine.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/public-health-recommendations.html
Nancy should have invited the stylist to her home and they could have had a nice bowl of ice cream together.
In other news, arguably more important:
“A former top Department of Homeland Security official who resigned in April says the Trump administration is creating the conditions for domestic extremism to flourish in the United States. Elizabeth Neumann left her position as assistant secretary of counterterrorism and threat prevention after three years at DHS. In an interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep, she offers a candid assessment of the counterterrorism community’s failure to address the threat posed by domestic extremism. She says the administration is paving the way for even more violence. …
“When Trump finally started using the term “domestic extremism” himself in the summer of 2020, it was in reference to the violence and looting that occurred during the protests across the country against police brutality targeting Black Americans, which the president attributed to “antifa.” For Neumann, this was an obvious red herring. She says that the numbers don’t bear out the idea that left-wing violence is as much of a problem as right-wing violence, and arrests during the summer’s protests demonstrate that.
“‘If you look at the people that have been arrested for that, by and large, I mean, it’s the boogaloo movement or it’s an association with QAnon. It’s the right side of the spectrum. It is not antifa.’ She’s unequivocal about this: ‘The threat of domestic terrorism is not from antifa. It is from these right-wing movements.’
“Neumann is perhaps even more worried about what’s to come as the election elicits possibly even more inflammatory words out of the White House. She’s also concerned that people who served as ‘guardrails’ around the president have left the administration. Those ‘adults in the room,’ she says, took the heat from the White House in order to allow people like her to keep carrying out their work. This fear is what prompted her to speak publicly, while many other senior administration officials have declined to do so. …”
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/02/908347989/former-dhs-official-white-house-failed-to-take-far-right-extremism-seriously
“White House Communications Director Alyssa Farah responded to NPR’s request for comment on Elizabeth Neumann’s charges that the White House has not addressed the threat of domestic extremism, particularly what Neumann referred to as ‘right-wing extremism.’ In an email, Farah dismissed Neumann’s concerns as those of a ‘disgruntled employee.'”
But Farah didn’t claim that anything Neumann said was actually false.
Yes, arguably. Ha.
Isn’t this the same Elizabeth Neumann who ran for office in NYC and was trounced.
I doubt it. Her Twitter account says she’s located in DC: https://twitter.com/NeuSummits
If you don’t know either, I suggest that you look up the NYC person you have in mind instead of presuming it. LinkedIn says “60+ “Elizabeth Neumann” profiles,” so there’s no reason to assume that they’re the same person.
Laughably false. Far right rioters and looters indeed!
Amish and Mennonites.
It’s not “laughably false.”
The FBI has reported that a majority of domestic terrorism cases are white supremacist violence.
Maybe you’re confused: looting isn’t domestic terrorism.
Antifa/BLM repeatedly setting buildings on fire with people inside, and barricading the doors so they can’t escape, is terrorism, Commit.
Just ask your fellow Democrat Ted Wheeler.
https://www.kptv.com/news/mayor-wheeler-on-rioters-setting-fire-at-portland-police-building-you-are-attempting-to-commit/article_8e01541e-d839-11ea-8736-4b746b521476.html
“When you commit arson with an accelerant in an attempt to burn down a building that is occupied by people who you have intentionally trapped inside, you are not demonstrating, you are attempting to commit murder,” Wheeler said during an online press conference Thursday.”
They have done that in multiple cities.
Also, looting is a terroristic act. Made even more so when the looters attack anyone who tries to stop them from looting.
Your reward for condoning and defending the people who commit those acts is coming.
BTW, Pelosi broke the law the second she entered the salon. Whether or not she wore a mask the entire time is irrelevant to that fact.
Here’s an FBI definition of domestic terrorism: “the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
I agree that “When you commit arson with an accelerant in an attempt to burn down a building that is occupied by people who you have intentionally trapped inside,” that’s terrorism.
But your article doesn’t provide evidence that the people who did it are “Antifa/BLM.” Do you have evidence of that?
For example, here’s an article “Riots in downtown Richmond over the weekend were instigated by white supremacists under the guise of Black Lives Matter, according to law enforcement officials” — https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/2020/07/27/police-richmond-riots-instigated-by-white-supremacists-disguised-as-black-lives-matter/
“looting is a terroristic act”
I doubt that the FBI agrees. What “political or social objectives” are the looters furthering? I’m open to being convinced, but not with your personal opinion: link to an FBI document confirming that they count looting as terrorism.
“Pelosi broke the law the second she entered the salon”
And I bet the salon owner and hair stylist also broke the law by allowing it.
“But your article doesn’t provide evidence that the people who did it are “Antifa/BLM.” Do you have evidence of that?”
You know damn good and well who the “people who did it” are, Commit. Just as Ted Wheeler knows.
But it’s that exact attitude that will cost your Party the election.
Your chosen Party doesn’t care about law and order, and even worse it wants less law and order by defunding the police.
It’s a recipe for political disaster that only a completely deranged idiot would not have foreseen.
“And I bet the salon owner and hair stylist also broke the law by allowing it.”
The salon owner is not the Speaker of the House. That is what people care about. So you can try to deflect all you want, but it is an exercise in futility. Pelosi got caught doing her Marie Antoinette impersonation once again.
Apparently you don’t have evidence for your claim, Rhodes.
What a surprise. /s
“A former top Department of Homeland Security official who resigned in April says the Trump administration is creating the conditions for domestic extremism to flourish in the United States.
There’s a reason she doesn’t work there anymore. She’s a Bush retread who recites absurd Democratic Party talking points.
https://sports.yahoo.com/wing-extremists-far-greater-threat-205619680.html
The one think I don’t like about Trump is that his personnel office kept dredging up this sort of office plankton.
“There’s a reason she doesn’t work there anymore.”
Yes, the reason is that she quit.
“There’s a reason she doesn’t work there anymore. She’s a Bush retread”
Any Bush retread has to be viewed with suspicion. I think Bush sentiments were closer to that of the democrats than to the Republica Party under Trump. IMO Trump is a far better President then any of the Presidents we have seen since Reagan.
Far too little, too late, to start trying to deflect now, Commit.
Thanks in no small part to the person who is the subject of this article, the Democrats own all of the Antifa/BLM “domestic extremism”. Up to and including kneeling down to them.
And just to make that even worse, they also own the idiotic Defund the Police movement. That’s the one that created lots of additional Trump voters.
It’s just basic Political Science. Never ever make the electorate have to worry about their own personal safety and well being. But for some bizarre reason (TDS), the idiots at the DNC forgot about that basic tenet.
Further proof that there’s nothing more dangerous than someone who believes they are really smart, but are not really smart, at all.
Pelosi owes Trump an apology setting up the impeachment scam
There was no “impeachment scam.” Trump did what he was accused of doing. If anything, there should have been additional articles of impeachment for other impeachable actions he’d taken (e.g., emoluments clause violations, obstruction of justice, breaking campaign finance laws and omitting required info on his financial disclosure form and then certifying it as “true, correct and complete”).
“e.g., emoluments clause violations, obstruction of justice, breaking campaign finance laws and omitting required info on his financial disclosure form” – Please elaborate. How did he violate the Emoluments Clause? What was his Obstruction of Justice? What Campaign Finance Law? What did he omit from his financial disclosure form? You have thrown out accusations that the media and Adam Shiff have babbled about but never gave concrete examples. For instance, if in the Campaign finance Law portion of your comment, if you are referring to the Daniels case I would think that was settled in concept with the John Edwards case. If in the Emoluments Clause portion are you referring to the fact that people stay at Trump named hotels and those persons are often foreign dignitaries, what dollar did he receive from such. In actually, the Trump organization licenses and manages hotels, they do not necessarily own them. My point is that you cannot just regurgitate talking points of the media and some politicians without something to back it up….especially if you are ‘committed to honest discussion’.
Re: the emoluments clause violations, you can read the details in the lawsuits that were filed. Most of the suits were rejected for lack of standing, but this one is moving forward: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/17/politics/trump-emoluments/index.html, and even those that were rejected for lack of standing have details in them.
Re: obstruction of justice, read Vol. 2 of the Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.
Re: campaign finance law violations and omitting required info on his financial disclosure form, those are related to the hush money payments made by Michael Cohen on Trump’s behalf (both to Daniels directly and to McDougal via the National Enquirer) and Trump omitting his debt to Cohen on his financial disclosure form filed in 2017 (later addressed on the form filed 2018 after it all became public, though even there he may not have included the entire debt). Here’s one discussion: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/24/trump-paid-michael-cohen-more-than-what-he-stated-in-financial-disclosure.html
Rick– Pelosi owes the entire country an apology for her impeachment carnival and for the lunatic displays from the House since then.
Cities are burning because of Democrats.
Don’t forget that Kamala helped raise bail funds for looters and arsonists so they could hit the streets and keep the destruction going.
Young, it all comes down to is the voters. When will they wake up?
I am not sure it will make a difference when the voters wake up once the Democrats and their antifa street thugs get their hands on piles of ballots.
From JT:
“For Pelosi, the incident was particularly embarrassing after just blasting President Donald Trump for setting a “bad example”in allowing people to gather for his nomination acceptance speech without masks or social distancing. Pelosi was also previously criticized when the pandemic was unfolding for calling people to Chinatown in San Francisco to demonstrate.”
Indeed! Walking between getting ones hair washed – with wet hair – and the next step – I don’t know, what is that ladies? – in a closed place of business is exactly the same as having a thousand people rally in public in close proximity for hours and on national TV as a message sending event to a public now already thoroughly confused on mask wearing and social distancing. Exactly the same! You nailed it JT!
JT then veers into pure propaganda with the completely false claim that Pelosi encouraged people to “demonstrate” in Chinatown. You idiot! She encouraged people to visit Chinatown to dine and shop and mentioned a traditional Chinatown parade. She also cautioned for safe practices.
“The California Democrat’s visit to Chinatown came three weeks before six Bay Area counties implemented shelter-in-place restrictions. On the same day as Pelosi’s visit, Trump tweeted, “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”
“As for the coronavirus, Pelosi didn’t deny its existence — contrary to Trump’s remarks — while visiting Chinatown. She struck a middle ground. “Prevention, prevention, prevention. We want people to be concerned and vigilant,” she said. “However, we don’t want them to be afraid.””
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/trumps-false-claims-about-pelosi-and-chinatown/
Where does JT get his news, Facebook or the WH? This is just crap.
You fail to mention that Pelosi and her fellow Dems have never once condemned the Antifa/BLM demonstrators/rioters for zero social distancing and not wearing masks, BTB.
Somehow you missed that?!
But more importantly is her support for the Antifa/BLM rioters, looters, arsonists, and murderers.
That is why your Party is in very deep political sh*t. Because unlike you, Natacha, and Commit, most people are good and decent.
And once again, Turley omits relevant information:
“Pelosi’s staff insisted Pelosi wore a mask while getting her hair done except for a brief period when she got her hair washed. The security footage shows Pelosi not wearing a mask as she walks briefly between two small rooms in the salon, her hair wet as if just washed. …
“[C]omments [from Pelosi’s Deputy Chief of Staff Drew Hammill] acknowledged Pelosi and her staff had relied on the interpretation of someone at the salon about what was allowed by new city regulations — that had just gone into effect Friday — and that the person was incorrect. ‘This business offered for the speaker to come in on Monday and told her they were allowed by the city to have one customer at a time in the business,’ Hammill said. ‘The speaker complied with the rules as presented to her by this establishment.’
“Pelosi’s staff said the speaker has a regular stylist who typically goes to Pelosi’s house to do her hair. But that person was not available on Monday so referred Pelosi’s staff to a stylist at eSalon because it is where Pelosi’s regular stylist used to work. …
“Kious told Fox News that stylists in her salon are independent and rent chairs, and that it was one of her independent stylists who told Kious that she was planning to do Pelosi’s hair on Monday. ‘I was like, are you kidding me right now? Do I let this happen? What do I do?’ Kious told Fox News, while noting that she ‘can’t control’ what her stylists do if they rent chairs from her, as ‘they’re not paying’ at this time.”
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/02/politics/nancy-pelosi-hair-salon/index.html
So Kious could have informed the stylist that it wasn’t allowed, and the appointment could have been cancelled or moved to Pelosi’s home. Why didn’t Kious do that? Seems to me that if the stylist isn’t paying Kious, the stylist has no right to use the salon without permission.
If Pelosi was misinformed, we can certainly blame Pelosi and her staff for not being better informed, but there’s still a difference between being misinformed vs. knowingly breaking the law (and yes, I know that ignorance of the law is not an excuse re: being fined for breaking the law, but it’s relevant re: the public discussion).
More relevant info:
“Now, the house speaker’s hair stylist is backing her claim and says the salon owner did indeed set the whole thing up. Through his lawyer, Jonathan Denardo says e-salon owner Erica Kious approved the appointment and during a conversation over the phone Denardo says Kious made several comments criticizing the House Speaker. The stylist’s lawyer says Kious had been violating the health order for months before the House Speaker’s visit and says, ‘It appears Ms. Kious is furthering a set-up of speaker Pelosi for her own vain aspirations.’”
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/09/02/pelosi-san-francisco-salon-visit-controversy-clearly-a-set-up/
If it becomes a court case, then they can all be questioned under oath.
Nancy could have worn a mask while getting her hair washed, Commit.
But what is most important is that she used her privilege to go to a salon to have her hair done, while her serfs are not allowed to do the same.
You and Nancy are only upset because she got busted once again (ice cream) as an elitist sociopath.
She should have worn her Hilary Clinton mask.
QUEEN NANCY can do no wrong, do as I say and screw the rest of you I am above the law. Nancy and other Washington Elite do not care about the rest of the people only POWER and HOW MUCH $$$$$ for them and their family. They do not care who they ruin.
Nancy and the other WASHINGTON Elite must be defeated and a Trump Win, which they will try and steal, and the Republicans taking over the House will stop Nancy and a severe blow to the Washington Elite and Global Elite. Nancy will be forced to retire and go back to her winery in NAPA.
Be interesting to find out if Veritas is involved with this somehow.
So Veritas drugged Schmancy and tricked her into illegally going into a shut down salon to get her hair done while maskless?!
Yeah! That’s it.
When do you graduate middle school, Bugs?
Lin Wood
Last night, the owner appeared on FOX News Carlson, and it was not clear to me if the Salon has been closed or opened. If closed, it means a special effort was made to accommodate the the speaker, and if opened, no issue there.
But there are some questions: Who made the tape public and why? If the salon was closed, then the owner could have been motivated to show hypocrisy on the part of politicians. This could hold be true independent of the owner’s ideology.
If the owner is a Republican, then the whole thing might well have been a set up.
The salon was closed, the owner was illegally allowing hair styling to be done but she was doing so because she has been shut down for 6 months and needed the money. Why is Newsom still crushing small businesses when the science doesn’t support it? Pelosi has been to the salon multiple times during the shutdown so what does that say about her character and willingness to follow the law? Blaming someone else for being caught doing something illegal is breathtaking hypocrisy but it’s typical Democrat behavior. Your statement regarding if the salon owner is a Republican is atrociously stupid. Everyone should be outing politicians for breaking the law or exhibiting hypocrisy. You seem to be excusing Pelosi’s obviously criminal conduct if the salon owner is a Republican.
The fact the salon owner was receiving death threats show a certain mentality among Democrat voters, a very troubling one where they accept lawlessness and lying from their politicians. What kind of society is that? A failing, degenerate society that has no morals or ethics.
Yeah, Steve and the truth and hypocrisy be damned. Like W.C. Fields said, “you can’t cheat an honest man.”
Who cares about defamation? She’s revealed herself as Nancy Antoinette! Paging Dr. Guillotine.
To the guillotine.
(music to the tune of The Armour Hotdog song)
Pell…Otzie. She’s Pell Otzie!
What kind of people are PellItzies?
Fat kid. Skinny kids.
Kids who climb on rocks.
Dumb chicks, demo dicks..
Even kids with chicken pox are Lotzies.
Pellotzies!
The dog…kids…like!
To bite!
Laws are for little people (and Republicans). This is the Democratic Party.
So is Nancy Pelosi going to be fined for violating her Son in Law, Governor Newsom’s state order or will the politically powerful simply crush the small business owner?
The real question is will Pelosi’s Son in Law, Governor Newsom have his mother in law fined for violating his state order? Or will the politically powerful simply crush the small business owner?
I guess DC has more bumblers than just #BUMBLE BUTT BIDEN. and/,or the rest of the gang on the Hill.!!!