Nancy Pelosi just played Donald Trump and the House GOP like a fiddle

[mcar]

Nancy Pelosi just played Donald Trump and the House GOP like a fiddle
Bill Palmer | 7:09 pm EDT July 16, 2019

If you’re wondering what political savviness looks like in its most brilliant form, you need look no further than what Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi just managed to pull off against Donald Trump and the House Republicans. She just won a chess match against GOP House leaders like Kevin McCarthy and Doug Collins, who were busy trying to figure out how to play checkers.

It all started when House Democrats decided to introduce a resolution today to formally condemn Donald Trump over his racist attacks on four Democratic Congresswomen. Someone was going to have to violate House rules of civility in order to introduce the resolution, which (accurately) disparaged the sitting President of the United States by calling him a racist. Nancy Pelosi decided that she would be the one to do it, which sent the House GOP into a panic.

House GOP leaders brought the proceedings to a halt while they made the argument that Pelosi had violated House rules – and the parliamentarian ended up agreeing with them, ruling that Pelosi wouldn’t be allowed to speak on the House floor for the rest of the day. But then House Democrats voted to keep Pelosi’s remarks intact as part of the official record. Then they voted to restore Pelosi’s right to speak. Then they passed the resolution condemning Trump. So what did Pelosi accomplish here?

First, by turning the whole thing into a chaotic spectacle, Nancy Pelosi ensured that the resolution condemning Donald Trump’s racism will get as much attention as possible, which is the entire point. Second, by inserting herself like she did, Pelosi has ensured that non-political Americans will see this as a battle between her and Trump, as opposed to a battle between Trump and the four freshman Congresswomen. This matters because Pelosi is more popular and respected by the American middle than either Trump or the freshmen.

Third, Pelosi just forced every House Republican to commit to voting “yes” or “no” on whether Donald Trump is a racist. Four House Republicans (and former GOP Justin Amash) ended up voting that Trump is a racist, meaning Trump will surely begin attacking them, thus bringing even more attention to the resolution in question. Several House Republicans in moderate districts voted that Trump is not a racist, which means that their Democratic opponents can use it against them in the 2020 election.

https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/pelosi-fiddle-trump-gop-house-nancy/19350/

[Thekaspervote]

1. So... please be remember this, how she stood up to dotard, and for her members.

Next time you think she isn’t doing enough, please think of this moment. Thank you madam speaker!!

[mcar]

2. +1

[Indykatie]

5. Give Folks a Day or Two and They'll Be Right Back to Second Guessing Pelosi.

Some Dems are quick to forget that we are fighting Trump and not each other.

[murielm99]

11. Correct!

[ProfessionalLeft]

73. I Don't Need a Day or Two

My response is simply, "That's all well and good, but Trump SFB remains in power without impeachment proceedings having been commenced, despite there being numerous grounds for his impeachment."

[StarfishSaver]

77. Trump remains in power even if impeachment proceedings are begun

[ProfessionalLeft]

80. I'm Well Aware Of That

I'm also well aware that the chances of the Senate voting to remove Trump from office are nil, and that Trump will in all likelihood remain in office despite having been impeached by the House.

But one thing is abundantly clear -- There is zero chance of Trump being removed from office if he is not impeached. And I strongly believe ya gotta go for it. We have a moral and ethical *obligation* to impeach him. Even if he's acquitted in the Senate, we will have sent the strongest possible message that his conduct will not stand. A far stronger message than a strongly worded letter or a vote of condemnation.

[StarfishSaver]

82. I don't necessarily disagree with you that he should be impeached

But I think timing is critical. And if it were to be done now, it would put a halt to the investigations and pretty much be little more than a censure vote by the House since nothing will come of it and by November 2020, it will be pretty much forgotten.

[ProfessionalLeft]

86. And I Don't Necessarily Disagree With You

Timing will, indeed, be critical.

I'm just weary. And despondent. A vote of condemnation, or censure, while symbolically positive, does nothing substantive in furtherance of Trump's removal. And I guess it just rubs me the wrong way to see the accolades being heaped on Pelosi for accomplishing little more than a strongly worded letter does.

I am not a Pelosi hater by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just holding my applause and accolades for the day when *meaningful* steps toward the removal of Trump (i.e., impeachment) are taken. And I fear that, due to miscalculation on Pelosi's part, that day may never come.

[StarfishSaver]

94. This wasn't about taking Trump down. This was about standing up for her caucus

Trump attacked and insulted four of her Members in very personal and possibly dangerous ways. Pelosi said, "not on MY watch," marshalled the power of her gavel and took the nearly unprecedented step of censuring him. And she forced the Republicans to either stand with their colleagues or stand with the racist president. And she exposed them for what they are

This was a BFD.

And can you imagine what people would be saying if she HADN'T done this? Why didn't she do anything? Oh, big whoop - another sternly worded statement. She wouldn't even protect her freshman Members ...

And we have no idea what strategic value this brought her internally. She got a good sense of how the Republicans would vote on impeachment. It may have helped galvanize Members reluctant to pursue impeachment right no. It likely helped build the case for impeachment that will strengthen her hand with the more medicine Members. It surely generated goodwill among the newer more Members, who no doubt were gratified to see the Speaker stand up for four of their own.

This was a master move on her part.

[ProfessionalLeft]

101. As I Said...

I really don't think we're in fundamental disagreement (except for characterizing it as a BFD).

As obnoxious and reprehensible as Trump's comments were, they didn't constitute an impeachable offense. And I completely agree with you that Pelosi did what had to be done and is to be commended for it.

It's the proclamations that "War is over! War is over!" that have got me in a funk. War is not close to over. Trump solidifies his grasp on power with each passing day, and I fear that, while the timing must be right, waiting for the optimum time may be too late.

In all candor, I feared fascism from the day Trump was "elected". And I took a lot of flak for being a conspiracy nut wearing a tinfoil hat. But, here we are. Witnesses ignore lawfully issued subpoenas and refuse to testify. Subpoenas for documents are ignored; the documents are not produced. Obstruction of justice is becoming a weekly event. And so on ad nauseum.

I fear for our democracy. I just hope we don't miscalculate and wait too long to save it.

[mcar]

138. +1!

[Chemisse]

108. I know how you feel, but I've decided to trust Pelosi's political instincts.

If we got the impeachment proceedings and wound up losing the election because of it, as Nancy thinks could be the case, we are far worse off than simply voting him out a year later.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

118. How would we lose the election by impeaching?

Could see it if we had nothing on him. But there's more than plenty. Trump's MO is the pile so much crap on, people can't wrap their brains around it. Impeachment would specifically outline and consolidate his crimes in a cogent, succinct list that will be blasted far and wide. Rep Al Green had a tremendous impact when he stood up on the floor yesterday. And he only had a partial list.

[Chemisse]

120. Here is what Trump could argue if we impeached (and of course the Senate voted down):

The Democrats did everything they could to overturn your votes. They even tried to impeach me! They wasted all your taxpayer dollars going after me and didn't do anything else! (Insults various Democrats in shocking ways) They did nothing but go after me! But they couldn't do it! (Smug grin followed by chest beating) Because I am the best president ever to walk the earth and have been persecuted worse than Jesus on a cross, blah blah blah.

And the voters will know that it's true, because that will be what they saw on the news every day - "in impeachment hearings today, so and so will testify about this boring detail", etc. while Trump screams about how the Dems are picking on him.

Remember, typical voters are not like us, they only pay attention to the big splashy stuff AND the things that affect their daily lives. And impeachment hearings will be dull.

In the run-up to the election they need to hear - every day - what the Democrats are trying to do to make everybody's lives better, but that Republicans - and Trump - are stopping this amazing progress every step of the way. That needs to be OUR drumbeat.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

122. That's why I support the idea of just taking the Mueller

Report and presenting that as articles and underlying evidence and doing what Lawrence Tribe suggested. Present and vote and declare him guilty. Boom. No drawn out hearings. Simple. And move on asap to try and get the vote protected. Of course we have waited so long, we have minimized the impact. Sadly.

[Chemisse]

129. The Barr rollout of the report was a disaster for us.

I like that idea though; I hadn't heard that before.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

137. Yes, that was played perfectly. Yet we will never know

Where we'd be today if we had immediately shown unified outrage the day we finally saw the report and as soon as possible declared there were impeachable offenses that warrant impeachment proceedings. It's been months and months now. With each day, minimizing the effect. Our last shot will be when he testifies. If we do nothing then...not even a censure, it is on us.

[FoxNewsSucks]

147. Good post,

Don't forget, MF45 is gonna lie no matter what. He can either lie that Democrats tried but failed because he's "innocent" or lie that Democrats didn't even try because "he's bigly innocent".

Actually, I think your post makes an argument for getting the impeachment hearings going now, not next year. Air the crimes now, McChinless gives MF45 a get out of jail free card, MF45 lies as expected. As with Barr's treatment of the Mueller report, they'll claim exoneration. Get it over with.

Then, next year, run not just primarily on what the Democrats tried to do but were obstructed by McChinless, but that they also tried to hold a criminal accountable but were also blocked by McChinless and his dirty republicon accomplices.

[joost5]

158. This whole thread is full of smart analysis. Can't disagree with this assessment.

[FoxNewsSucks]

159. I meant this reply to be for this post. Oops!

Good post! Don't forget, MF45 is gonna lie no matter what. He can either lie that Democrats tried but failed because he's "innocent" or lie that Democrats didn't even try because "he's bigly innocent".

Actually, I think your post makes an argument for getting the impeachment hearings going now, not next year. Air the crimes now, McChinless gives MF45 a get out of jail free card, MF45 lies as expected. As with Barr's treatment of the Mueller report, they'll claim exoneration. Get it over with.

Then, next year, run not just primarily on what the Democrats tried to do but were obstructed by McChinless, but that they also tried to hold a criminal accountable but were also blocked by McChinless and his dirty republicon accomplices.

[Perseus]

114. Why would it put a halt into the investigations? On the contrary, it would open the vaults

Impeachment proceedings will allow Democrats to open more investigations, to subpoena people who would not be able to refuse coming to testify, it would be in the open for the public to hear what is said, what is found in the investigations.

Impeachment proceedings are to allow full investigation, to have the unredacted Muller report in its entirety, tax records, etc.

We assume that the Senate will not impeach, but we don't know that, once all the crimes are out in the open they may not have another option but to impeach. Thinking the Senate will not impeach is just an assumption. Let the cards fall where they may, but not impeaching will have a very high cost on Democrats, the country and and the World.

To say with so much confidence that the Senate will not impeach is wrong, we really don't know that will be the case once the country learns of all the crimes committed by this administration, the creature and his family. I think that it is going to be so horrendous that the Senate will have no other option but to impeach.

[StarfishSaver]

155. Once an impeachment is completed, there will be no more investigations

It will be a done deal.

[Thekaspervote]

81. Please read starfishsaver's post #77, just below yours. This is correct. it won't rid us of him

Our dem leaders have a plan. It may not be the immediate response you are seeking... but what of value does?!

[DaDeacon]

156. Professional left ...

Thank you for saying before I could!!!

[DownriverDem]

171. They need to focus

Their fights can only lead to a trump second term. Win in November 2020. It will be won in the middle. Then push your ideas.

[blue neen]

3. Indeedy.

Nice work, Madam Speaker!

[Baitball Blogger]

4. It does feel like he walked right into it.

[mcar]

6. So much for the "strategy"

[Chemisse]

109. So the strategy was to make it him against the "socialists".

Nancy made it him against all the House Dems, pulling the spotlight away from the Squad, and displaying a unified Party.

Brava!

[mcar]

139. And got House Rs on record as supporting racism

[George II]

12. More like he stepped IN it.

[Mike Nelson]

7. It's great because it passed...

… and it was not a law. People just get a little time to hear the news and they will see Trump was Condemned as a Racist. They pass things all the time that never get passed by the Senate... so there is a false sense that there is work being done on Climate Changes, for example' nothing is getting done... but this is a simple thing and it got done.

[Control-Z]

8. So the "chaotic spectacle" in the House today

was intentional! I love that.

[Raven]

9. and...and this is a big and...people in this country who don't pay much

attention to these things and assume that their Congressperson isn't a racist, now know what he/she is and can vote accordingly in 2020.

[mcar]

141. Dems have a lot of fodder for ads

[sheshe2]

10. She played the GOP like a fiddle.

Brava.

[comradebillyboy]

13. Good job as usual Nancy.

[brer cat]

14. Well played.

K&R

[Vdizzle]

15. And it got everyone talking about him again.

I’d like to see them talking about his ties to Epstein. Not about his obvious racism. Let the mainstream see that he, like Epstein, is a predator. A pedophile predator. Because that’s what he is. What do you think the whole “pizzagate” thing was? Projection.

[angrychair]

16. This does nothing

The resolution means nothing. It has no legal or even ethical ramifications.

Parliamentary tricks and strongly worded letters mean little when most people dont vote and even fewer actually understands how govt works.

Republicans have already dismissed it all as being about "socialism vs. freedom" (see McCarthy)

Republicans continue to refuse to comply with congressional subpoenas.
Whatever happened to all these people that refused to testify? Anything?

Where are trump's taxes??

Whatever happened to the records we subpoenaed from trump's accounting firm and Deutsche Bank??

Either hold trump accountable or start calling him "king" and embrace the inevitable destruction he will bring apon this nation. One or the other.

[StarfishSaver]

26. What about Trump's taxes and Deutsche Bank records?

Those are in court now, with the cases on the courts' expedited calendars. The oral argument in financial records case was held last Friday and the court should rule any day - observers say the argument didn't go well for team Trump. Oral arguments in the Deutsche Bank case will take place next month. And the Ways and Means Committee's case on the tax records has been filed and is pending before the court.

[ancianita]

60. You have no idea what's going on. This is for the record: rule of law vs scofflaw; party vs party.

This speech and vote stay ahead of the bullshit media amplifying tweets, which try to control the political message. (With only 7% of this country actually using Twitter.)

Thinkers who know politics know that this is not about Pelosi.

This is about Trump's racism.

From his housing discrimination ruling in NYC,
to his call for death for the Central Park 5,
to his birtherism against Obama
to his calling the Charlottesville neonazis "good people,"
to his telling elected officials to "go back where you came from"

That is why four Republicans have the sense to call racism when they see it, and voted with the Democrats. Because racism is beyond political definition or denial.

Trump's racist rant was to elevate The Squad to foil status, so he can now DEFLECT AND REPOSITION HIMSELF by putting ALL the Democratic Party into commie status for 2020.

The House vote today was about DEFINING PARTIES going into 2020 -- the party of trump wants the racist vote; the party of the people want everyone's vote.

The rest of the GOP cowardly went forward, voted against Pelosi's resolution, voted FOR Trump's words.

They call the vote a Pelosi drama.

It was not. It's rule of law vs scofflaw; party vs party.

Voters know what this is all about.

Pelosi and progressive Democrats have won America. Trump has lost America.

[NBachers]

68. Thanks, ancianita, for your perceptive and intelligent post. I'm tired of the Pelosi pot- shotters.

[Thekaspervote]

84. Yes thank you.. me too sick and tired of arm chair politicians snarking at Speaker Pelosi

[angrychair]

151. To be clear

I never mentioned the speaker once in a negative context. Not once.

Also, to be clear, we are all allowed to have a different opinion on how we handle trump.

While we should all be respectful and polite, no politician should be above criticism. No one. Not trump. Not Pelosi. No one.

That is one of our major criticisms of Republicans with trump, isnt it? Party over people?

To be clear, the speaker's middle of the road, safe and slow, approach is a valid strategy that may help gain some votes with independents.

That said, I and many others, are wondering if she intends to seek impeachment or is this a run out the clock strategy and hope he doesn't get reelected.

We shouldn't be playing politics with this, he is unequivocally guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and Congress has a sworn constitutional duty to seek impeachment in those cases.

It may not be easy but we must seek it none the less.

[LenaBaby61]

165. IF running out the clock is all we got ...

We're in trouble, especially knowing that ru$$ia and thuglicans will be on 'roids as it relates to voter-suppression, purging votes, dipping into voter data bases etc.

[angrychair]

78. I'm very aware of who trump is

There is absolutely no need to define political parties at this point. It has been crystal clear who the Republican party is for a long time. I mean trump is the head of their party. They have two indicted criminals as members in Congress. Racist and xenophobic comments flow from Republicans like others say "hello".

It's not about Pelosi at all. It's not that I don't see her perspective. She makes the safe plays. Playing the middle of the road. I just happen to think there is more value in an impeachment hearing than playing this out until the election. That is the assumption in her current strategy. I just don't think playing it safe and slow is the best bet.
We need to hold this administration accountable, not drag it out hope he doesn't get reelected and just goes away.

Trump and the Republican party are one and the same. Break him and you break them.

[ancianita]

97. Absolutely no need? What kind of 2020 turnout are you imagining. I'm seeing people who aren't

like you or I. Even Democrats who aren't like us. That is, in fact, the majority of Democrats.

I'm seeing a public that's just tuning in to this racism issue on TV.

They see Pelosi NOT playing safe. She made sure of that. Don't mistake her sounding soft as "middle of the road."

I see all the value in impeachment that you do. We Democrats should have learned by now, however, that being right isn't what wins.

The impeachment inquiry will come in time, and reveal all in due time, no worries.

As people get ready for the primaries, this whole look at the party is what they'll see.

I know what we need as well as you. And I'd like to assure you, Pelosi knows more than you give her credit for about how to get us there.

[StarfishSaver]

99. You think the Speaker taking the rare step of censuring a president because of racist comments he

made about four freshmen Congresswomen of color and speaking so frankly the minority clamoured for her words to be taken down was "the safe play to the middle of the road"?

No. It wasn't. Not at all. It was a badass, in your face move by a Speaker who knows exactly what she's doing.

[AncientGeezer]

166. It wasn't a censuring....it was a resolution to condem the tweets & comments

[Laura PourMeADrink]

115. You are SO right! And the critical flaw is the demoralizing

effect on a very large swath of our party who believe as we do (drastic measures needed) and who will eventually realize that we were dismissed as "don't worry about them, they have nowhere to go."

[brutus smith]

144. You're absolutely right

Most people don't even know there was a "resolution". People will take notice if there are impeachment proceedings.

[bdamomma]

123. very good insight

the vote did do harm to the GOP (put them on the ropes) they are showing their true colours.

[mcar]

142. Well said!

[Baltimike]

126. neither will impeachment, as long as Moscow Mitch runs that show. nt

[angrychair]

140. I respectfully disagree

A resolution like this will only pass the House.

No similar resolution will ever come for a vote in the senate.

Republicans will frame it to their cult as a partisan attack on trump.

Same could be said for all the bills that have been passed by the House.

What was the point if, as you have clearly stated, they will never come up for a vote in the Senate?

A lot.

Yes, I concede that this resolution goes to making a point but little more.

Impeachment is different. That process is laid out in the Constitution. It is our constitutionally mandated responsibility and our only recourse to remove a president that has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors".

If he is impeached in the House it goes to the Senate, if McConnell wants it to or not. He has little control over that process.

The chief justice presides over a trail in the Senate. If impeached in the House, it must be heard in the Senate.

All the evidence is presented. Nothing is in secret. If Republicans hear all that evidence then act partisan and not impeach than that is on display for all to see.

No different than asking Republicans to either vote for the resolution our support trump's racist comments.

[Baltimike]

167. I respectfully disagree

everything you posted applies to an impeachment hearing...and acting as if "getting them on the record" is some panacea is not passing the test.

We impeach. He *wins*. It's really that simple

[angrychair]

168. Sorry, what?

We impeach. He *wins*. It's really that simple

I don't understand your point here.

[Baltimike]

169. To be a bit more clear...

the votes are not there...and the "impeachment now" crowd seems to think they will magically appear.

If we impeach RIGHT FUCKING NOW, the current occupant of the WH gets acquitted and he "WINS"

[Brother Buzz]

17. I'm generally not keen on the Palmer Report

But this time, Bill Palmer is spot on. Fun short read!

[Goodheart]

18. I hope that Madame Pelosi created a learning moment for herself.

That there's power in her attack votes against the monster. The next one should be an impeachment.... sooner rather than later.

[Demsrule86]

22. No so not worth losing the house...and having the dotard win a second term...when he will stay after

impeachment...with his buddy McConnell announcing breathlessly that he is exonerated.

[Goodheart]

24. She won't lose the House any more with an impeachment vote than she did today with a racism vote.

[StarfishSaver]

33. A "racism vote" won't end with an acquittal in the Senate and an end to investigations

But I do love watching people who've been demanding that the House MUST impeach NOW even if it won't remove him from office because they must make a STATEMENT about his corruption respond to the House making a statement about Trump's racism by shrugging their shoulders and muttering "Meh! It's not going to change anything, so it's a waste of time ..."

[Thekaspervote]

85. Agree! madam speaker stood up to racism and publicly supported her members.

As this goes forward it will speak to generations of young women not to be silent and not to fight for what is right. It should also be noted that she did it exactly by the rules and what was called for. As for the gop idiots, who do you think will...in the long run want to emulate that?!

[Trumpocalypse]

127. Well said nt

[mcar]

143. Nothing is ever enough for some, SS

If/when the House begins an impeachment inquiry, some will be complaining about that - it's weak, it's taking too long, it's too early/late, blah, blah.

[StarfishSaver]

157. Bingo!

[NastyRiffraff]

170. Yep. Too many just look for something to complain about

Whether it's impeachment, or anything else involving Nancy Pelosi, whatever she does is wrong,wrong, wrong. It's almost like a conditioned response when they see or hear her name. It doesn't matter what the issue is, or if there's no issue at all; the name is enough; Pelosi = "WHY DOESN'T SHE IMPEACH? RIGHT NOW!!!!! I DEMAND IT!!!! OR ELSE!!!!!!"

[58Sunliner]

89. Yep.

[Demsrule86]

135. Impeachment isn't popular and those who believe that magically, the country will wake up and support

conviction in the senate are just plain wrong...we will get blamed...McConnell will exonerate Trump...and the we are fucked. We will impeach Trump into another term and maybe lose the house as well.

[Demsrule86]

132. That is not true...impeachment is not popular and we are too close to an election...you might feel

great for a while after impeachment but when Trump gets reelected and maybe takes the house then what? So not worth it. There is a difference between doing something ...anything and doing something useful. Impeachment is not useful at this point.

[FoxNewsSucks]

55. Holding criminal scum accountable will NOT lose the House.

MF45 already proclaimed the Mueller report exonerated him. McChinless and the partisan hacks all declared the same.

If the republicon senate lets MF45 off the hook, which they probably will, it then is on THEM. House Democrats will have done their duty by airing the crimes and making the charge. If they don't do it, MF45 will declare he's so innocent that Dems didn't even try, and McChinless will declare that the Senate was ready to give real consideration to the charges, but Dems apparently had nothing.

The partisan hacks and most of the media will go along with that, and way too much of the gullible and ignorant public will believe it. It's far better to make McChinless defend letting MF45 walk free.

[Trumpocalypse]

128. Tell that to the 20 or so House Dems

who got elected in swing districts.

[Demsrule86]

133. Exactly...people need to consider the political implications of impeaching Trump...and they could

really harm our chances in 20 to take the presidency,senate and keep the house.

[FoxNewsSucks]

148. like Katie Porter?

She's been great, flipped her seat, and favors holding criminals accountable.

[Trumpocalypse]

154. And she is just one vote nt

[Demsrule86]

131. Moderates gave us the house...in their districts...impeachment is not popular period...Impeaching

is foolish...hold him accountable by not losing the house and kicking him out of the white house in 20 because impeachment will not remove him from office ...and IMHO he get reelected if we impeach... and maybe takes the house as well ...foolish thing to do.

[FoxNewsSucks]

149. "Moderation" cost us in 2010

The Blue Wave happened not only because of what Democrats want to accomplish, but because the non-deplorable part of the public wanted tRumpism STOPPED and the admin held to account.

[Trumpocalypse]

153. No it didn't

2010 was a response to Obama's election and healthcare reform that the right cast as radical.

As far as 16, the top issues were:



https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/top-issues-voters-healthcare-economy-immigration.aspx

[Demsrule86]

162. People on the left cost us 2010...there was no way to get a single payer or a public option and

they turned on President Obama and cost us six years of potential policy...the sequester and all the other misery including a loss of a SCOTUS justice. It wasn't moderation, it was a refusal to accept the reality of our situation and I see the same sort of thing here lately...Vote for the Democrat always and show up...you won't get everything you want but if you don't ...you get get nothing. We live in a center left country People like the ACA- a huge accomplishment...so no to MFA as an issue for our candidates and our eventual nominee. It is a loser for us.

[StarfishSaver]

28. The Speaker doesn't need to create a "learning moment" for herself. She knows what she's doing

Unfortunately, her efforts to create a learning moment for the people on the sidelines complaining and trying to explain to her how she should do her job is a much bigger challenge.

[pazzyanne]

45. Amen!

[NBachers]

69. StarfishSaver, you've turned into one of the posters I rely on for well-informed perspective.

[ProfessionalLeft]

113. I've been reading his posts for months

He's a very smart and well informed guy. He also has experience that gives us an insight to the machinations of government few, if any, of us have.

[RelativelyJones]

79. +1000

[stopdiggin]

163. "and trying to explain to her how she should do her job" true that (NT)

[Haggis for Breakfast]

19. Well done, Madam Speaker

Brava

[betsuni]

20. Republicans looked like they didn't know what they were doing.

Weak. Mindlessly following orders. Not having a good explanation for a "no" vote. Grumpy old men turning their backs on reporters and walking away.

Thank you, Nancy!

[TheCowsCameHome]

23. I have a theory on that...

It may be because they don't know what they're doing.

[betsuni]

31. What happens when Republicans are in charge:

[George II]

121. That's hysterical, and to think it was produced 8 years ago, before things got MUCH worse.

[Cha]

103. Nancy had them on the ropes!

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

105. That first tweet!

I'm annoyed that people are whining about this resolution being a waste of time while at the same time complaining that Democrats never do anything.

[Cha]

106. They don't get it.. pure and simple.

I'm glad I hang with those who do.

[betsuni]

107. Me too.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

21. Hooray!

This means Trump will finally alter his behavior, right?

Oh. He won't. So why exactly is this so fabulous if NOTHING changes?

[StarfishSaver]

29. I assume you ask the same question about impeachment?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

43. Love it! Don't call out the criminal because you're

afraid of how he and his supporters will take it!! Just be silent..! Wrong on a zillion levels IMHO.

Thank you Rep Green. You've got courage and right on your side!!! Bravo

[Laura PourMeADrink]

39. Good one !!! He could not care less. Being one

of only three presidents to be impeached? If someone told him the history...he WOULD care about.

[Ponietz]

46. Hoarse says:

[link:http://

Link to tweet

?s=21|

[George II]

25. Unless I missed it he's been MIGHTY quiet ever since the vote. Steaming I suspect.

[BlueIdaho]

32. Being essentially censured by the House

For being a racist isn’t going to play well in the history books. Trumpsky’s ego ain’t gonna like that.

[George II]

48. I think this fell just short of censure, but historically they are not too different....

This is only the fifth time:

Andrew Jackson - censured (expunged from the record a year later)
James Buchanan - resolution of admonishment

Both of those were in the House.

The Senate passed resolutions of "admonishment" against Abraham Lincoln and William Howard Taft, neither were full censures, but the words basically have the same strength.

Today's has been called a censure by some, I guess historians have to analyze the wording.

Even so, this is only the fifth time an action against a president was taken (not including impeachment of Johnson and Clinton, and almost surely Nixon if he didn't quit)

[BlueIdaho]

100. Great background info!

Thanks for setting the scene. I do believe that Trump - regardless of anything he says - craves praise and adoration. This is not a list he wants to be on. The same goes for impeachment. Imagine his blood pressure if he ended up on the same short list as Bill Clinton.

[Me.]

27. Good

[keithbvadu2]

30. GOP, what countries do you want the four democrat Congresswomen to return to?

GOP, what countries do you want the four democrat Congresswomen to return to?

[SMC22307]

57. Democratic congresswomen, not democrat. (n/t)

[AllaN01Bear]

34. cue tweetstorm in the morning , in 5.4.3.2.1.

properly impressed.

[SweetieD]

35. I'm not against the resolution obviously but I hope people don't think of this as some end

It is not meaningless but it doesn't mean much in the current scheme of things. It does nothing to hurt Trump or the GOP. If anything they will maintain their popularity or it will grow.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

38. True. The guy doesn't even care about laws or justice

or truth. A partisan resolution ? He could not care less about. #impeach

[pazzyanne]

47. tRump does care about his fragile ego, and this will sting!

The more of these type of attacks, the merrier as far as I am concerned. Nancy is a brilliant politician, which some of us tend to forget because she isn't going to do something that will damage our chances in the 2020 election.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

50. Refresh my memory on the brilliant acts? I do respect

Her many years of service and devotion to the party...just wondering what the brilliant moves are? Seriously, not snarking.

[pazzyanne]

52. If you play chess, you will understand.

If you don't, I can't cover it in this forum.

[SMC22307]

58. Why dodge the question?

I think many of us would like examples of the brilliant moves.

[pazzyanne]

66. Do you play chess or checkers?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

112. May be like the move to block Trump's Emergency money stealing?

From Politico..
By TED HESSON 06/10/2019 06:13 PM EDT
The House of Representatives today appealed a federal judge’s decision to uphold President Donald Trump’s ability to funnel billions of non-congressionally approved dollars toward border wall construction.

[pazzyanne]

117. That is part of it.

Nancy plays chest (strategy for the long game). Many people play checkers (go for the quick kill).

[Laura PourMeADrink]

125. I was being facetious. Sadly. Trump's most effective

move was installing his handpicked AG with no scruples. And if anyone knows how to drag things out in the court, he does.

[pazzyanne]

160. It is chess vs checkers.

I am ticked off most of the time now. I hate what is being done to this country day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute. I have studied constitutional law, but I don't know enough to understand why things are happening the way they are, and more importantly what can be done about it. I do believe the Democrats in Congress know what they are doing and I need to trust them. Gathering data for future use is doing something.

[Hulk]

36. Throw the rubber stamp dolt, jamie herrera-beutler out on her lazy butt...

Ever since we lost our Democratic representation in Vancouver, WA; this worthless crooked smile has been freeloading and hiding behind the gop rubber stamp line. Worthless to the hilt. I can't believe she has represented us since Brian Baird turned tail and ran (because things were getting too nasty in Congress...whimp.)

We had a quality candidate run against her this last time, but buetler is too big a coward to meet her for debates, and she hides behind her barrage of mailings that show her being a big time supporter for commerce and vets - which is a package of bull shit. I hope the candidate that ran against her last time does so again, and we can throw her worthless butt out of Washington DC, and she can retire to Washington state...doing nothing - pretty much what she's been doing in DC.

[Celerity]

40. the western border of WA-3 (the ocean) is the only Rethug-held part of the entire Pacific Coast

of the contiguous 48 states.

[Hulk]

64. A sad distinction.

I have no idea how she got to be elected in the first place, and how she continues to be re-elected. I lived in Vancouver, WA for eight years up until a year ago, and the first three times she was elected, I would have to say her opposition on the Democratic ticket was weak. This last time she was running against an accomplished state congresswoman...but she won again. I don't get it.

When we first moved to Washington, I volunteered to pass out voting registration cards at a parade, and I was shocked how many ignorant people claimed they don't vote, have never voted, and were actually proud of that irresponsible fact. I just had to shake my head and move on. I got accused of being a Democrat trying to enroll more democrats, but the fact was I was simply passing out voter registration cards to anyone who wasn't registered, or had moved, etc.

I disgustedly refer to Vancouver as "Vantucky". I wasn't impressed at all. I grew up across the river in Portland, Oregon, and I've always thought Vancouver was backward...but that was the thinking of a young kid with nothing to base it on. But after living there for eight years, I believe my intuition was correct. As always, there are good people living everywhere. But there are a LOT of people who have some real mixed up logic, by my way of thinking. They simply don't want to pay any taxes, couldn't care less about the MAX mass transit that Portland has offered to hook them up to, and I guess they are content to have the I-5 plugged solid 12 hours a day to go back and forth to Portland. Amazing. I could go on and on, but again....glad to be gone from there.

[Celerity]

71. thanks for the background, and I would have assumed that Vancouver, due to being right across the

river from Portland, would be really liberal and pretty sophisticated. Strange they are not.

Ballotpedia show 3 Dems are running against her so far

https://ballotpedia.org/Washington%27s_3rd_Congressional_District_election,_2020


Rudy Atencio (D)
Peter Khalil (D)
Carolyn Long (D)


Democrat Carolyn Long Seeks Rematch Against Washington Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler

https://www.opb.org/news/article/congress-southwest-washington-campaign-democrat-carolyn-long-jaime-herrera-buetler/

Long, a political science professor at Washington State University in Vancouver, drew 47% of the vote last November. The race was one of the most competitive Herrera Beutler has faced since she was first elected in 2010.

In an interview at her home in Vancouver Friday afternoon, Long spoke with OPB on her decision to challenge Herrera Beutler a second time. “I’m a very intentional person,” she said. “And once I saw a nice pathway, we started putting things together.” The issues she ran on previously are the same ones she plans to emphasize in this campaign: affordable health care, building infrastructure and protecting the environment.

“Southwest Washington is fiercely independent, and I think that that reflects who I am,” Long said. “I’m a problem solver, I like to get into the weeds on policy, and I think the people want a representative like that.” Long is announcing her candidacy Monday with a series of rallies in Centralia, Longview and Vancouver. Starting in Centralia, a smaller town in largely red Lewis County, was a deliberate campaign choice.

“I want to focus on all parts of the district,” Long said. “And we want there to be an emphasis, especially, on rural communities.” Last year’s race between Long and Herrera Beutler was closer than many had initially expected. In previous elections, Herrera Beutler beat her challengers with double digit leads. “Most people didn’t believe it was a competitive district, but we made it a competitive district,” said Long about Washington’s 3rd District, which includes urban Vancouver and Clark County and spans west from the Pacific Coast out east to rural ranchland around Goldendale.

Democrat Peter Khalil, a legal mediator in Vancouver, is also vying for Herrera Beutler’s seat. Khalil announced his campaign in April. To secure a win against Herrera Beutler in 2020, Long is banking on grassroots organizing and a larger electorate voting during a presidential year, as well as better name recognition. “The experience last time showed that people really were interested in the campaign, that our messages reflected those of the people of southwest Washington,” Long said. “And it shows us we need to keep working.”

snip

[Hulk]

75. Ooops...guess I was wrong about Long having been a state Senator.

Must have gotten her confused with someone else. In any case, a political science professor at WSU is a lot more of a credential than what Herrera-Beutler ever had.

Wish her well. I'll be voting for whoever is her opponent. I now live in central Mexico, but I use my sister's Vantucky address as my permanent address...so hopefully we can get HB out of DC this time around.

[MarvinGardens]

102. Vantucky, heh.

I lived in SW WA in the early 90s as a young man. To me it was liberal, but I was a transplant from the South, so I guess it's all relative. Some of my impression of the area was probably really of Portland. I knew some folks from Seattle who similarly thought Vancouver was some backwards place.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

37. #impeachtrump

[Iliyah]

41. K & R

I know t-rump is fuming. He is yelling at staffers at the WH now. He is out of control, not unusual. Heads are gonna roll. Meanwhile the WH place a person who does not believe in education to see over the scholars at the Smithsonian.

Dumbing down The United States of America continues.

[Chemisse]

111. His "brilliant" strategy backfires again.

And this is why he is afraid of Nancy.

[demigoddess]

42. Madame Speaker

[Aussie105]

44. It's settled

Trump is a racist.

Now, back to serious stuff, please.

1. Stop him locking up brown children in concentration camps.
2. Stop him searching out and deporting illegal immigrants.
3. Get to see Trump's tax returns.
4. Question his too cozy relationship with Kim and Vlad.
5. Discuss/reveal Russian interference in the last election.
6. Guarding the validity of the next election by preventing outside interference.
7. Stop the trolling/social engineering on social media by Trump and outside interests.

And, most importantly, get on with:

8. Scheming and plotting on how to get his ass out of the White House.
9. Organising a fumigation squad to decontaminate the White House once he leaves.
10. Getting the US back to sanity.

[Ponietz]

49. 11. Hold KAC, et al., in contempt for ignoring subpoenas

[dewsgirl]

53. I definitely would add the Epstein connections. I personally

think that's at least part of why he is doing this. MSM isn't talking about that anymore. So it's working. Not that he isn't a racist pig, he certainly is. This is distraction.

[Aussie105]

62. This is a distraction. Agreed.

One of the biggest and most powerful tool any bully has is that of keeping his victims off balance, and unable to react because there is more coming.

Trump has been playing the distraction game all his life, he is an expert.

Essentially, the current distraction means he has gotten away with whatever previous bad thing he did.

Where is the outrage over the concentration camps, his taxes, his collusion?

Buried under a pile of distractions, that is where. Which essentially means he has gotten away with past misdemeanors. He just has to keep the distractions coming, and he can essentially do what he likes.

Trump is probably thinking that yes, he is a racist. And proud of it, too. At least it's taken the heat out of other, more damaging stuff.
So he wins, in his own mind.

I wonder what the next distraction will be?

[Thekaspervote]

88. He will always twist it so that in his own little mind he wins

[zentrum]

51. Ok. Maybe she can join

....the squad after calling them nobodies as she did last week.

Glad she's changed her approach.

[lunatica]

54. Just one small correction

The resolution condemned the COMMENTS as racist. Trump was NOT called a racist. That is against House rules. You cannot call the President a racist in a speech on the House floor.

[George II]

56. Perhaps even more powerful than the actual vote was the vote against the republicans...

...trying to get her calling him a racist being stricken from the record.

[RobinA]

59. I Don't Get

how this resolution is the least bit meaningful. It’s symbolic at best, a lot of sound and fury.

[StarfishSaver]

61. I assume you feel the same way about impeachment?

[RobinA]

116. Depends On What

impeachment is based on. I think impeachment should be considered a nuclear option and should be limited to "high crimes and misdemeanors." Being a moronic, vile, pig is not that. The best antidote for regime change is the ballot box.

[tymorial]

63. Do people honestly believe this makes any difference?

I don't. Trump has maintained a consistent base of supporters who will defend him no matter what he does, what he says or what he tweets. We are not talking about a small number. More than 30% will defend him, vote for him and vote for Republicans regardless of racism, bigotry, misogyny or homophobia. We already knew that the gross majority of Republicans will never get behind any attempt at censure, impeachment or removal. So what did this accomplish? Putting their apathy or outright support on record? The people who recognize Trump and the republicans for what they are have already made up their minds. Our opponents have already done the same. The rest are living in some delusional world where current events doesnt matter or they cant be bothered to be informed. I truly dont believe this will register. They would have already been aware from numerous instances of Trump and republican impropriety.


I do believe that Nancy Pelosi is far more intelligent, sophisticated and honorable than Trump. That being said, while I respect her, she has shown nothing which attributes the notion that she has some grand plan to deal with Trump. I see no evidence of this what so ever. She may be hoping that the Republicans change their tune on impeachment and removal but she has to know deep down that isnt going to happen. There will be no impeachment and Trump will never go to prison.

This is all terrible and horrible. I believe the house and senate have abandoned their oath. .I believe this is the case for BOTH parties and I am aware how much those words piss people off here. Prove me wrong. Show me where Congress is discharging their duty to hold the president to account for his numerous crimes. No, committee investigations dont count unless they reach the general assembly.

I dont hate Nancy Pelosi but her continual denial of impeachment as an option is unacceptable. It is a breach of office. Yeah I said breach. She took an oath. TRUMP has abandoned his duty and it's up to her to hold him to account. If she doesnt have support in her own party, send the whip to convince them. This is it. There is no master plan. She isnt yoda and she isnt playing some advanced level of GO. She is the speaker and she intends on keeping the house. That is ALL she is intending.

If this offends well I am sorry. There is just no master plan and I am tired of hearing about how ther is.

We need to rail against this reality or just accept that the constitution is largely meaningless when it comes to separation of powers and also accept that the president has autocratic powers because our elected officials place party over oath or have no backbone to actually make the hard calls.

Rant off

[StarfishSaver]

65. Why do you think this resolution is worthless but impeachment without removal

is essential?

[angrychair]

72. That is easy to answer

Because this resolution has no legal or ethical ramifications.

House Impeachment hearings have actual meaning. They cannot be ignored or dismissed like the long list of subpoenas that have been ignored by Republicans.

A vote in the House for impeachment is defined in the Constitution itself.

If the House impeaches trump he is forever considered impeached, no matter if the Senate votes to convict or not.

The Senate cannot ignore it either. They may vote not to convict but there still must be a hearing. That hearing is overseen by the Chief justice and McConnell cannot stop it.

That is the power of an impeachment.

[StarfishSaver]

76. Impeachment without conviction has no more legal ramifications than a resolution

An impeachment without conviction and removal is a statement, nothing more. It's an important statement, but it doesn't change anything. The president remains in office and his powers aren't affected or curtailed in any way. And, in fact, unlike a resolution of censure, an impeachment sets up a mechanism for a president to be exonerated - or at least obtain an acquittal that he can spin as an exoneration.

[JI7]

83. +

also the fact that Republicans wont even just condemn something so obviously racist itself says a lot.

with impeachment they can make excuses about whether it's legal and other technicalities.

[58Sunliner]

95. Not true. I thought you were the expert.

An impeachment is an inquiry first, impeachment proceedings, where we get to look at the evidence with more power than we currently have to subpoena witnesses and records. It does not set up a mechanism for "exoneration". Where is that in the law? It isn't. That is you characterizing a false premise, IMO. You must be playing checkers.

[StarfishSaver]

98. I do know this topic well

And while I'm not even sure exactly what it means to "look at evidence with more power than we currently have to subpoena witnesses and records" (since I don't know how anyone looks at evidence with more power), but I do know that impeachment doesn't give the House any greater access to documents or ability to compel testimony than it already has under the proceedings currently underway.

And impeachment does indeed trigger the mechanism for exoneration since, once a president's impeached, the Senate can conduct a trial and we all know that this Senate would acquit, i.e., exonerate, him in a heartbeat.

Where is that in the law? Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

[Thekaspervote]

90. Hummm, yes I would like an answer to that as well

[jrandom421]

67. It's not useless

For any Democrat running against any of the Republicans that voted against this resolution, it puts them on record of supporting and protecting a president who makes racist statements that they agree with. That can be a pallet load of political ammunition to be used in 2020.

[ancianita]

70. It makes all the difference. Today is about what mcar's post said. I'll add what I told angrychair.

Pelosi made sure this is not about Pelosi.
Today came from tweets, yet only 7% of America actually uses Twitter.

So media continued to make Trump's tweet the news.

What Pelosi decided was to get the Democratic frame ahead of Trump's. For. The. Record.

Trump started it all, trying to divide the party, and today and he got it in back in spades.

So today was about Trump's racism.

From his housing discrimination ruling in NYC,
to his call for death for the Central Park 5,
to his birtherism against Obama
to his calling Charlottesville neonazis "good people,"
to his telling elected officials to "go back where you came from"

Four Republicans have the sense to call racism when they see it, and voted with the Democrats. Because racism is beyond political definition or denial.

Trump's racist rant was intended to elevate The Squad to foil status, so he could then DEFLECT AND REPOSITION HIMSELF by putting ALL the Democratic Party into commie status for 2020.

The House vote right today? Only shallow Trumpists called the vote a Pelosi drama. It was anything but.

Pelosi made Trump's cheap racist attacks about DEFINING PARTIES going into 2020.
Today the record showed that the party of trump wants the racist vote;
the party of the people want everyone's vote.

The rest of the GOP cowardly followed their boss, voted against Pelosi's resolution, voted FOR Trump's words.

Voters saw it.

Pelosi and progressive Democrats reflect America.

Trump has already lost America.

[Thekaspervote]

91. Thank you!! Great voice, great reasoning.. maybe you should run for office!!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

119. And to bolster your argument... people are assuming there

Is a master secret plan that 80 congressmen who support impeaching know nothing about.

Not impeaching has done two things:

Allienating a very large part of our party who believe in standing up for what is right, regardless of outcome is the best path forward.

And, bolstered any sane Republicans belief that he hasn't really done anything THAT bad. Have heard many times.."well, the Dems hate him, and if they had had anything they would have impeached.

These two factors, along with an inability to protect the 2020 election, will widely reduce our chances to defeat him.

[tymorial]

146. Oh yes the Grand Master Plan.

The one that involves hoping that something changes otherwise we give the middle finger to the constitution and our republic.

Master plan. I am so tired of that theory

[Laura PourMeADrink]

150. Some are pushing the idea that the ones privy to

the highest classified information are the ones who know the bigger stuff against him. Like Nadler doesn't. And the 80 congressmen don't either. And, evidently Mueller (assuming he wouldn't keep a horrible crime secret) doesn't either. Yet it must not be horrible enough not to stop him by any means you can as soon as possible.

Talk about contorted logic.

[stopdiggin]

164. tell us how we do this. again.

"If she doesnt have support in her own party, send the whip to convince them." So tell us again again how we're going to do this? Because surely no one has talked to these representatives in the past couple of months? I DO understand a level of frustration. But respectfully .. getting lathered is not a plan either.

[MadDAsHell]

74. No politician who gets into Twitter feuds with their own party members is "brilliant."

[Thekaspervote]

92. If you are speaking about madam speaker... that just isn't the case.

She has every right to ask them not to air things openly on twitter in what was a closed mtg...closed as not public

[RobinA]

161. No Politician Who

gets into Twitter feuds with anyone is brilliant. No politician should be anywhere near Twitter except MAYBE to tweet PR from time to time.

[58Sunliner]

87. That's great. I gave the dotard my middle finger today and called the repukes racists.

It was somewhat satisfying, but didn't accomplish much. Am I playing chess yet? It isn't a battle between her and DT. It is a battle against POC , women, and LGBTQ people. I think it is important to censure him, but it will pale compared to what an impeachment inquiry will do to address publicly, his malfeasance.

[Thekaspervote]

93. No... you are not playing chess ..yet. Speaker Pelosi is playing the long game. You cannot

Assume you know what her next move is!!

[egduj]

96. I think this was a good win.

Hopefully, it's the first of a streak of wins.

[forgotmylogin]

104. Nancy took point. Hell yeah.

I know we have our frustrations with M. Pelosi, but I think this is exactly why she's good.

She won't start a fight, but neither will she afford one on her watch.

[BlueJac]

110. I simply don't agree...

I was not surprise by Republicans siding with Trump, their districts are RED and they will get reelected! Nothing was accomplished.

[Hotler]

124. Ya, but only because the dick wad opened his mouth and let his racism fly.

Had he not done that we would still be where were last week, still wondering when we are going to see some fight. I'll take this win, but it no reason to pop open champagne. It's basically a first down and we are still on our own 10-yard line.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

130. And the name of the game is his approvals. Evidently

That is our game plan. To hope he does more shit and people will stop liking him. Yet nothing seems to be affecting his numbers. Hoping some future fumble will has little basis on his record.

[Hotler]

134. I hoping he screws up big by letting the N-word fly. nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

136. Was just thinking about that. Remember there

Supposedly is tape from apprentice of him doing that? Let it rip!

[Joe941]

145. I stand with Pelosi - she did a good job.

The one aspect of all this that didn't go the best is AOC insinuated Pelosi was a racist - which of course is not true. Then tRump jumped at the chance to stand up for Pelosi and telling reporters she is not a racist.

[Guilded Lilly]

152. Yes, Madame Speaker!...now let's beat him like a drum!