Thank God Pelosi didn't rush to deliver the Article of Impeachment to the Senate

[StarfishSaver]

I suspected that, had the House delivered the Article of Impeachment to the Senate while McConnell was still in charge, he would have killed it.

After yesterday, there can be no doubt that's exactly what he would have done. McConnell was sitting there waiting to get his hands on it so he could call a vote and dismiss the impeachment before a trial and I have no doubt he'd have managed to get the votes.

[NoMoreRepugs]

1. Our Democratic Reps and Senators need to understand

they are in a War for the future with RePutinicans and ANY reconciliation is IMPOSSIBLE.

[Turin_C3PO]

3. They do understand.

Dems have done great so far. There’s a couple of our Senators who may present obstacles from time to time but we can’t do much about that.

[NoMoreRepugs]

7. Four years of angst is not easy for some of us to get over.

[Demsrule86]

72. Well unless you want many more years of 'angst', you should try. We need to support Biden and

all of our elected period. The GOP will beat us if we don't.

[soldierant]

101. x 1000

[BobTheSubgenius]

104. Put me down for another +1000.

[StarfishSaver]

108. It's clear that for some people, politics isn't about trying to help people or getting anything done

It's just a vehicle for venting outrage. And when a political situation no longer supports that outrage, they move on to something else to scream about.

Because it's really just all about the screaming and little else.

[StarfishSaver]

5. If only they understood their jobs as well as you do

[NoMoreRepugs]

10. Ouch?

[aidbo]

65. This, but unironically.

[ShazzieB]

92. Oh, snap!

[Budi]

17. Ya. I'm pretty sure our Dem Reps & Senators know more about the threat & what's at stake than we do

Pretty certain they're privy to a lot more details of the threat to America's future than any of us are.
To state they may not be, or have not considered the risky steps to maneuver around the slim majority they hold, & how to reach the needed outcome, is quite unnecessary.

They are neither naieve nor casual about the dire situation the US is in & to degrade their abilities is really a slap.

Thanks

[StarfishSaver]

23. Thank you for saying this

[Budi]

29. Indeed StarfishSaver.

I've had it with the broadbush degrading slaps at any of our Dem leaders who are tasked with holding the line between our proud symbolic Flag flying, or complete dissolution of our US Constitution.

We have the very best of the bunch sitting right their at the top.
They are more aware every moment of every day that United we stand or Divided we fall.

I do not doubt their loyalty to their country.

[Demsrule86]

73. The demands from those who do not understand the process or the fact we have 50 50 Senate

with seven by my count conservadems or moderates and we have the thinnest majority in history in the House are ridiculous. And the idea that you can govern by attacking the GOP and refusing to work with them on anything is even more ridiculous with such a small majority. The country is in trouble we need to leave our revenge fantasies ( I get it...hate Trump too)and our progressive dreams aside and govern. We go in an get what we can. The things we can't get that we really want...then we have to work like hell to beat the odds and take more Congressional seats in 22. If Roosevelt had been attacked as Biden has in the what second week of his presidency...the new deal would never have happened. Give Biden some time.

[PatrickforO]

50. One of the things I like seeing now about Democrats their new visibility.

I saw Rachel Maddow's interview with Chuck Schumer, who came across as being very passionate towards the policies the Biden administration is trying to put in place. I felt really good about that.

As to the specific things he said, it appears Dems have taken off the gloves. I think they 'get it,' for sure.

The other worry I had that has been alleviated is that Democrats have not done very well educating voters on their accomplishments. That was particularly a problem with O. As great as he was, he didn't blow the trumpet enough, to my mind.

But Biden is out there every day doing pressers, which is great. I saw his talk yesterday on federal procurement and American jobs. I love these policies! Finally! We are heading the right direction in so many ways.

The other thing that gives some cause to be optimistic is the election of Jaime Harrison to the DNC chair. I'm always mindful of the urgent need to do some deep canvassing of American voters - just because after decades of right-wing propaganda, we absolutely must reeducate people around issues that affect them. I am optimistic about Harrison being right for this job. AOC said this, too - that we need deep canvassing of independent voters around racism, healthcare, etc. I know not everyone likes her, but she is right in this respect.

Still, Starfish, we do have a really serious problem. As Rachel pointed out yesterday, we have the Democratic party in there, really trying to address policy issues, and the Republicans aren't. Instead, they are trying to kill investigations, kill impeachment, convince us the insurrection was no big deal and that, for the sake of 'unity,' we need to forget it. And, we have the fear factor, with vicious Trump supporters threatening their children if they vote against Trump's interests. That's why Rand Paul's vote yesterday was so heavily tilted to Trump. They are afraid.

I'm not sure what the Democrats will do about this - Obviously, the worst, like Cruz and Hawley, Boebert and Gosar, need to be expelled. They are violent insurrectionists. But how do we kill off Q? How will we get rid of the domestic terrorists? I mean, look at that dirtbag who stole Pelosi's laptop and tried to sell it to Russia. A judge RELEASED HER TO HER MOM'S CUSTODY. For God's sake! And, of course, she has now been destroying evidence and ecouraging other insurrectionists to do the same.

The ACLU and other Civil Rights organizations are coming out against a domestic terrorist law. I'm not sure where you stand on that. But when the highest charge we can press against some of these violent terrorists is 'trespassing,' basically, then we do have a problem.

[PaulnFortWorth]

59. We Need To Reach Out To Republicans As "Victims" Of The Big Lie

Have a special prosecutor investigate how millions of people got conned by various factions into believing the election was stolen. Publically refer to them as "gullible victims" who are susceptible to being taken advantage of. Have congressional meetings and subpoena congressmen like Cruz to provide "proof" of voter fraud. Then hold him in contempt of congress and fine him for not providing his proof. Generate another subpoena requiring his "proof" and fine him again but this time double the fine and inform him the third time he must provide proof or face jail time.
Do this with Giuliani, Rodger Stone, Hawley and Fox News anchors.

[PatrickforO]

67. Hmm. Let's address some of the things you advocate, in order. OK, I know I'm a wonk, but...

Disclosure: I am an economist, and so believe, deep in my bones, that good policy can shake us out of much of this, and help us to save the republic.

We do know how millions of people got 'conned' by various factions. We know four definitive things around this:

1. The 1919 Michigan Supreme Court ruling in favor of shareholder primacy, which opened the door for sociopathy among C-level corporate officers because their only mission was to increase earnings for shareholders, without necessarily considering workers, consumers, communities and the environment. The Shareholder Value Myth by Lynn Stout gives a thorough treatment of shareholder primacy and what it has done. If we force a change to a stakeholder approach for corporations, we would alleviate some of the worst corporate excesses, including the role they have played in corrupting our republic, and creating the right-wing propaganda machine.

2. In 1971, Lewis Powell was horrified by the rise of Ralph Nader and consumerism, as well as the anti-war, Civil Rights, and women's movements, so he penned a 'Manifesto' to the US Chamber of Commerce that lays out the entire right wing propaganda machine that exists today, down to the least college campus. Here is a link to the Powell Manifesto: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/democracy/the-lewis-powell-memo-a-corporate-blueprint-to-dominate-democracy/. This was essentially, corporate pushback against New Deal policies, and along with Hayek and the Chicago School of Economics, is responsible for the neoliberal 'privatize, deregulate, and gut government programs' approach the Republicans have taken since the days of Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House back in the mid-nineties.

3. In 1949, after WWII and the Nuremberg Trials, the US Congress and then president Harry Truman enacted a 'Fairness Doctrine.' This law was designed to protect Americans from Joseph Goebbels big-lie style propaganda. Essentially, it did this by requiring the news to be factual, covering the 'who, what, where, when, and how' but not the 'why.' If they wanted to talk about the 'why' of a certain story, then they were obligated to present both sides of the issue fairly. This kept news aloof from ratings, as well. Here is a relatively thorough USA Today fact check on the Fairness Doctrine: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/28/fact-check-fairness-doctrine-applied-broadcast-licenses-not-cable/6439197002/. The end of the Fairness Doctrine brought about the rise of right wing talk radio, and cable news-tainment shows. To my mind, the Fairness Doctrine needs to be expanded to take cable, radio, and political advertisements, and social media into account. A 21st century Fairness Doctrine would help a great deal.

4. Citizens United, which allowed for the formation of super-pacs, which spend billions trying to swing public opinion. To my mind, this ruling is misguided, and Congress would do well to overturn it legislatively.

There's much more, of course. If you read Howard Zinn's 'Peoples History of the United States,' you can get a very good view of the antecedents of our present situation. Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein are also good. And for economics, Thomas Piketty has written several landmark books about capital in the 21st century. The latest is titled, "Capital and Ideology." I highly recommend that - it is a 'wader' but well worth the effort.

Last, as to what you're advocating around subpoenas and contempt charges, everyone is entitled to due process, including Cruz, Hawley, Gosar, and the rest. The impeachment trial, and certainly the investigations that are underway, will take care of this problem. I expect these people will end up being expelled from Congress, and ultimately some will face criminal charges.

[BComplex]

69. I'd put money on it that Cruz, Hawley, Gosar and the rest will never face one day of retribution

for their sedition.

Ain't gonna happen.

[Demsrule86]

74. No we don't. We need to govern. A commision in the background can look into it like the 911

commission...we have to look to the future.

[PatrickforO]

51. One other thought - I wonder if it would be possible on the impeachment trial to allow

a secret ballot for impeachment. Trump would be sunk for sure, because every single (sane) one of those Congress people, whether Republican or Democratic, has to be furious about the events of January 6. I wonder if such a secret ballot would be feasible.

[Demsrule86]

71. That would make no difference.

[StarfishSaver]

82. No. The Ayes and Nays have to be recorded

[lunatica]

94. Always ask yourself if you want to know how your own party reps vote.

I, for one want to know how they vote. As a matter of fact I wish all congressional votes were tallied publicly so we could know what the votes were and why in plain English. No secrets!

[Demsrule86]

70. You need to understand that we have 5050 senate and smallest majority in decades in the House.

So just stop...we don't have the numbers to go to war. But we can pick our fights get some GOP types on board if possible and get some important stuff done. But somethings won't be done unless we increase our majority in 2022...you know Warnock has to run again in 22 I believe. So let's set reasonable goals and move forward or it will be 2010 all over again.

[exboyfil]

2. Yep

McConnell gave us an out by having the Senate out until Jan. 19th. It was essential for the House to take its only Constitutionally allowed action.

The Constitution does need some work obviously. Maybe the trial will show how defective it truly is in checking a lawless President.

[kentuck]

4. McConnell knew about the Article of Impeachment one week before the Inauguration.

He could have called the Senate back to start the trial immediately.

How long could he have held it?

Would it have been "unconstitutional" for him to hold the Article, knowing that there was so little time to act before the new President was sworn in?

Doesn't this argument have about as much credibility as what Rand Paul and the Republicans are arguing?

[StarfishSaver]

8. McConnell received the article on Monday

[kentuck]

18. Thanks .

edited.

[Turin_C3PO]

15. McConnell

only received the Articles a couple of days ago.

[kentuck]

19. Yes, I corrected.

Thanks for noticing.

[Turin_C3PO]

21. No prob.

Not trying to be a pain in the ass or anything lol.

[StarfishSaver]

22. I don't understand your question

[AZ8theist]

25. He couldn't start the trial until the articles were delivered.

Nancy, once again, proves she was playing 3 dimensional chess....

[LaMouffette]

6. Oh, absolutely! That's why McConnell was giving those little hints to the media that he believed

Trump's inciting his mob was an impeachable offense. He was setting a trap. But Nancy Pelosi saw right through him. Yes, thank God for Nancy Pelosi.

We must NEVER trust McConnell. Never, never, never!

[StarfishSaver]

9. Exactly!

She knew not to release control of the Article until she could put it into the Democrats' hands.

[malaise]

12. Yes indeed

She knew exactly what she was doing?

[liberalla]

42. This is exactly what you said back on Jan 16 when I asked a question...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14942169

Right on! (again!)

[StarfishSaver]

43. Yep

It wasn't a difficult call .. it was obvious what she was doing and why she was doing it, notwithstanding the naysayers.

[servermsh]

11. Even funnier: Mitch kept the Senate out of session until January 19th...

...and THEN voted for a point of order to discuss whether the impeachment was constitutional because Trump was already gone.

[betsuni]

13. K&R

[Turin_C3PO]

14. Yes.

It’s gonna be tough when she retires and we have to replace her for Speaker. She’s been one of a kind. I wish we could clone her.

[judesedit]

16. I'm praying Sinema and Manchin flip to support getting rid of the filibuster

You are absolutely right. McConnell can't be trusted for a minute. Unless there is another way around needing 60 votes, it's the only way to get anything done. Of course, it will help the rethugs, too, if they get back in. Thank goodness Nancy waited. At least the trial will be recorded for history and, maybe, just maybe, the Hump will be convicted. There is one thing that has been made pellucidly clear.....dems can NEVER sit out another election. We must come out loud, proud and strong and vote more and more dems into office if we want to save this country from all out fascism. We must vote on paper ballots as often as possible and come out in droves when not possible. Very simple. We must also fight fire with fire regarding the numerous rw media propaganda sources. We have to get out there and debunk all the bullshit with short, catchy phrases and infectious comedy. Billboards are good, too. And how can I leave out the Lincoln Project. This is what will work to counter the influx of hate talk. We cannot afford to be quiet-spoken, polite, politically correct intellects right now. We have to be the blunt, scruffy, neighborhood defenders of the underdogs in all their glory. Please. It's passed the time for action.

[Turin_C3PO]

24. I think Manchin and Sinema

will consider changing their minds after the Repubs show themselves as the obstructionists that they are.

[judesedit]

53. I pray you're right.

[Demsrule86]

75. So do I. I don't think that will hurt them in terms of keeping their seats either . People want us

to govern.

[dlk]

34. I think Manchin and Sinema are lobbying/looking for an incentive

There is talk Manchin may move to the Republican Party. Time will tell.

[judesedit]

54. I pray you're wrong. If he does he's proving himself anti-American

[dlk]

63. No kidding

[Demsrule86]

76. He won't move to the GOP.

[dlk]

86. Hope not

[moonscape]

78. Current talk about Manchin, and where did you

hear this? I know it has been floated/feared in the past, but now?

[dlk]

110. One place it's been mentioned is by Rick Wilson

He’s pretty tuned in to this sort of thing.

[drray23]

102. There is absolutely no such talk other than in the unhinged blogosphere.

Manchin has been a conservative democrat all his life. The situation suits him. He gets to play "negotiator" with the other side and burnish his conservative credentials back home in West Virginia. He is no fool. Where he to switch to the GOP he would just be another drone in the GOP caucus with zero influence.

[LittleGirl]

58. Right! That's exactly what needs to happen.

I think we need to be proud winners! We’re in charge now!

[Budi]

20. Thank you Speaker Pelosi, Sens Schumer, Raskin, Swalwell,& the rest of our true fighters for justice

What they faced on Jan 6th, & what they are tasked with as they step carefully forward, is a testament to their lifelong belief in this country & this Democracy.

I wish them the safety for their lives & success in their mission.
God speed ~

May the people of this country Never Ever again take for granted the value of their vote.

[StarfishSaver]

26. And I thank them for standing their ground and not letting themselves get pressured into

jumping the gun by some of the more impatient and less foresighted people in the party.

[wiggs]

27. Plus, more info and more testimony surface every hour now. nt

[Demsrule86]

77. I would love to believe that more information would make a difference. But it won't.

Let's get in and get out and then a commission to investigate...outside of Congress. While we move on and govern. Time is short.

[kentuck]

28. Will the Supreme Court end up ruling on the matter?

That impeachment is a process that does not end with the change of Administration? That it was begun under the Administration of Donald Trump but was sent to the Senate under the Administration of Joe Biden in a normal and timely manner, and should be lawfully considered as a constitutional act? That an illegal act does not expire at the end of any term or office and should be completed by the new Senate as a simple continuing process?

[StarfishSaver]

31. I think the Court could weigh in on it in very specific circimstances

But probably only of Trump is convicted and disqualified and that disqualification later gets in his way.

On possible scenario is that he is convicted and disqualified and then runs for office again and wins. If he were to run for the House or Senate, he could be denied his seat based on the disqualification and he could sue to try to force Congress to seat him, whereupon the Court could rule on whether the Senate has the Constitutional right to disqualify him.

Another interesting scenario would be if he ran for president again and won. But I don't know what the mechanism would be for him to be denied the ability to take office.

But I don't think the Supreme Court would weigh in during or immediately after a trial - primarily because I don't think there would be an immediate case or controversy for them to address unless and until he's convicted and punished.

[kentuck]

36. It's strange how he can control the Republican Party and not even be in office at all.

Does it even matter if he is disqualified from holding office, so long as he controls the Party?

[StarfishSaver]

38. Amazing, isn't it?

[kentuck]

47. It amazing how much damage he can do and not even be in office.

He is in control of the cult. We worry that he will win the election in 2024 and do then he will be "dangerous" again. Actually, he will be just as dangerous for the next 4 years with the control he is now exhibiting over the Republican Party. Even without Twitter...

[jimfields33]

33. The only question would be can senator Leahy be judge and vote?

That might end up in front of Supreme Court but nothing else. They will vote, he can but wacky righties are questioning this.

[StarfishSaver]

39. Yes he can

There is nothing in the Senate rules preventing the presiding officer, if they are a sitting senator, from voting.

[jimfields33]

49. Thanks I thought so

The repugs are pulling whatever they can.

[Tommymac]

97. Fine. Then Cruz & Hawley & Tupperville and all the others allegedly involved

as potential insurrectionists can't vote either.

Own it & Eat it trumpists.

[msfiddlestix]

30. Agree. Perfectly Clear that Treasonous Bastard would have done just that.

Fmr Republican and leader of the RNC, Michael Steele told us we were being Punked by taking McConnell at his word.

He is who always was. A Slimy Anti-American White Supremacists Confederate, diabolical and drunk with Power.

[StarfishSaver]

40. Yes we did

Only to be lectured about how we were defending cowardice, etc.

[dlk]

35. Nancy is fully aware of McConnell's duplicitous nature

She wasn’t fooled.

[GoCubsGo]

37. Yep, and she also recognizes that the GOP has been imploding since the election.

No point in bringing it to the Senate until they were out of power. Waiting just sped up the implosion, as will all the evidence coming out. I strongly suspect that she knows the evidence will likely take out some of the traitors in Congress, too. Or, at least further expose them. Rushing it to the Senate would have swept them under the rug.

[Hotler]

41. Nancy, is that you?..................

[StarfishSaver]

46. You caught me.

[gab13by13]

44. I think this is much ado about nothing,

if I remember correctly there wasn't a big push to rush the Article over to the Senate, as a matter of fact there was much more of a push for Speaker Pelosi to hold on to the Article. Speaker Pelosi is the best Speaker in our history. To me, making a big deal about this serves no purpose. To me it is more important to decide how long the trial lasts and will witnesses be called, that is what we should be discussing not past history. There are arguments for a short trial and arguments for a longer trial. Personally, I believe that witnesses should be called.

It will be hard to get 67 votes but Democrats need to put forward the best case possible regardless.

[StarfishSaver]

48. You must not have been reading DU a couple of weeks ago

"Send impeachment to the Senate NOW!!!" was all the rage.

[gab13by13]

52. Oh, I agree about DUers,

but I don't believe there was serious discussion among House Democrats to rush over the Article. The discussions that I heard among House Democrats was about a happy medium, not sending it too soon but not waiting too long so that the severity of what happened was still fresh in everyone's mind.

I do think what is important now is to make the right choice about how long the trial lasts and about calling witnesses and for that decision I trust in Speaker Pelosi.

[DallasNE]

45. Plus

That would have been before it came out that Don Jr. and other Trump officials met the night of Jan 5th with the now arrested leaders of the groups the Trump campaign paid $2.7 million. These groups were the plumbers for the whole operation. The was a Watergate style operation on steroids - and under the auspices of the Trump reelection campaign team. Game, set, match.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

55. She's way too smart and savvy to do something like that. nt

[Eyeball_Kid]

56. McConnell stated that he didn't want to deal with an impeachment trial until...

... Trump was out of office. The Dems agreed. They all waited until after 1/20/21.

Of course, now the GOP is trying to finesse their way out of a trial altogether.

[NJCher]

57. so what does all this likely mean?

Trump will not be impeached, ever?

[tirebiter]

61. He has been impeached

Twice.

[NJCher]

64. No, I understand that

I mean by the Senate.

[StarfishSaver]

85. It means there will be a trial that Democrats control

[Gore1FL]

60. By what Constitutional Mechanism could he have killed it? nt

[StarfishSaver]

62. Among other things, with a Motion to Dismiss

That would be the simplest way to do it.

But there are surely other arcane procedural moves he could have made that I'm not aware of - but Pelosi probably is. And even if she isn't, She definitely knows not to assume that McConnell didn't have any up his sleeve.

[Gore1FL]

66. He was unable or unwilling to do it with the first.

I don't think he would have the votes to dismiss. Five Republicans joined the Democrats Yesterday.

While I share your skepticism over McConnell, I think the best he could do was push it back, which he already did.

[StarfishSaver]

68. He could only push it back because he didn't have the article in his hands

If he had the article within his control, you can be pretty certain he'd have made sure it didn't survive long enough to make it into Schumer's.

[AntiFascist]

81. It appears that some of the Republican thinking on conviction has changed...

McConnell seemed ready to oust Trump from the party at first, but something has happened in the past week or so and they now appear to be more united at this point. They probably realized that such a split would be more damaging to the GOP than uniting behind the idea that the trial is unconstitutional, even though it can clearly be argued that it is constitutional.

[StarfishSaver]

88. I don't think he was necessarily ever interested in ousting Trump

He may have been trying to game Pelosi.

It didn't work.

[AntiFascist]

90. What I think happened was...

Trump got his Russian oligarch friends together to commit to funding opposition campaigns to the 10 House Republicans who voted in favor of impeachment. He pretty much said he was going to do this, leaving out the "Russian oligarch" part, of course. This likely scared Moscow Mitch and other Republican senators, who only care about maintaining their own power. People don't realize the power of dark money over the GOP.

[Demsrule86]

79. McConnell could have voted to get rid of it when he had the majority.

Had it been sent over before the Dems took over...it would be gone.

[Gore1FL]

80. By what Constitutional mechanism? nt

[StarfishSaver]

84. You asked this question before and I answered it.

[Gore1FL]

89. You said the senate had the constitutional power to dismiss the case.

I don't see that power mentioned.

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

Also, if he did that, he would be forever tied to Trump and the House would just impeach him a third time.

[StarfishSaver]

91. The Senate has the Constitutional power to conduct impeachment trials according to its rules

That includes the ability to grant a motion to dismiss if it deems it appropriate.

It's part of the impeachment procedures and is not even up to question.

[Gore1FL]

99. "If appropriate" Did meet the criteria for 5 Republicans

Even - 2 Democratic Senators and + 1 GOP, there are still over 50 votes against that move.

So While I grant it may be constitutional, it isn't mathematical. Meeting reality is sort an important point whether mentioned or not.

[StarfishSaver]

103. You're jumping all over the place

But you got the answer your question.

[Gore1FL]

107. I expected an answer that fell into the situation at hand. I did not get that.

Thanks for trying, though.

[Demsrule86]

98. He could have to vote not to hold a trial as he did after the fact ...only he would have had the

votes.

[Gore1FL]

100. It was 55-45 after the addition of 2 GA Democrats and the removal of 1 GA Republican

53-46 is still not a win in that vote.

[Hekate]

83. KnR

[Hermit-The-Prog]

87. Moscow Mitch and his Radical Republican Reich lie.

[mountain grammy]

93. They should have done it on January 7th..

and walked through the rubble in the Capitol and into the desecrated Senate chambers and delivered it that day to Moscow Mitch.

[StarfishSaver]

95. Whoosh!

[mountain grammy]

96. That's really silly..

I don't disagree with how it was done, god forbid we disagree. I'm just saying what a dramatic impact that would have been. It probably wasn't feasable.

[Blue Owl]

105. K&R

[mtnsnake]

106. Pelosi is as savvy as a world class chess player

It's kind of like she's always thinking 5 moves ahead of her opponent. She is amazing.

[LanternWaste]

109. Speaker Pelosi knows how to play the long game.

Which not too ironically, frustrates the the hell out of the short-sighted and the impatient.