Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
babylonsister
babylonsister's Journal
babylonsister's Journal
February 6, 2020
2/06/20 10:36am
Judge Napolitano: Trump Was Guilty As Sin
Fox News Legal Analyst Andrew Napolitano wrote a scathing op-ed indicting every Republican senator but Mitt Romney.
By John Amato
While Trump surrogates lie to the press and claim Trump did nothing wrong whatsoever, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News' Senior Legal Analyst writes that Senate Republicans shirked their duty and acquitted Trump without bothering to weigh any evidence highlighted by them refusing to call a single witness.
Judge Nap outlined the entire case:
Napolitano then explained how new evidence against Trump was buried by Senate Republicans (24 newly uncovered emails and John Bolton's testimony) was as shameful as Trump's behavior.
They do not.
Judge Napolitano: Trump Was Guilty As Sin
https://crooksandliars.com/2020/02/judge-napolitano-trump-was-guilty-sin2/06/20 10:36am
Judge Napolitano: Trump Was Guilty As Sin
Fox News Legal Analyst Andrew Napolitano wrote a scathing op-ed indicting every Republican senator but Mitt Romney.
By John Amato
While Trump surrogates lie to the press and claim Trump did nothing wrong whatsoever, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News' Senior Legal Analyst writes that Senate Republicans shirked their duty and acquitted Trump without bothering to weigh any evidence highlighted by them refusing to call a single witness.
But the search for the truth requires witnesses, and when the command from Senate Republican leaders came down that there shall be no witnesses, the truth-telling mission of Trump's trial was radically transformed into a steamroller of political power.
Judge Nap outlined the entire case:
Trump's solicitation of assistance for his reelection campaign from a foreign government by holding up the release of $391 million in military aid to the same foreign government. These funds were congressionally appropriated and ordered to be paid by legislation that Trump had signed into law.
Federal law prohibits such solicitation as criminal and prohibits government officials from seeking personal favors in return for performing their governmental duties. The latter is bribery.
The evidence that Trump did this is overwhelming and beyond a reasonable doubt, and no one with firsthand knowledge denied it.
Federal law prohibits such solicitation as criminal and prohibits government officials from seeking personal favors in return for performing their governmental duties. The latter is bribery.
The evidence that Trump did this is overwhelming and beyond a reasonable doubt, and no one with firsthand knowledge denied it.
Napolitano then explained how new evidence against Trump was buried by Senate Republicans (24 newly uncovered emails and John Bolton's testimony) was as shameful as Trump's behavior.
The second signal event was shameful. It was the 51 to 49 Senate vote to bar witnesses and documents from the trial.
Isn't it odd that a president who clamors for exoneration, who claimed loud and long that he committed no crime and did no wrong, who insisted that his request to the Ukrainian president to seek dirt on Biden in return for American financial assistance was "perfect," would command the members of his own party to block testimony adverse to him – rather than hear it, cross-examine it, challenge it and thereby obtain the exoneration on the merits that he seeks?
Do innocent people behave this way?
Isn't it odd that a president who clamors for exoneration, who claimed loud and long that he committed no crime and did no wrong, who insisted that his request to the Ukrainian president to seek dirt on Biden in return for American financial assistance was "perfect," would command the members of his own party to block testimony adverse to him – rather than hear it, cross-examine it, challenge it and thereby obtain the exoneration on the merits that he seeks?
Do innocent people behave this way?
They do not.
February 6, 2020
Posted on Thu, Feb 6th, 2020 by Jason Easley
Republican Congressional Cowards Sit Quietly As Trump Attacks Romney
Trump held a post-acquittal gathering at the White House where he attacked Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans cowered in fear and did nothing.
Trump said, “Then you have some who used religion as a crutch. They never used it before. An article written today, never heard him use it before. But today, you know, it’s one of those things. But it’s a failed presidential candidate, so things can happen when you fail so badly running for president.”
https://twitter.com/i/status/1225480883077099522
The congressional Republican fear of Trump has never been more obvious than it was during that moment in the White House. Congressional Republicans are spineless cowards who incapable of ever doing the right thing.
Republicans talk a big game and they love to sound tough, but they are afraid of a vindictive senior citizen with a Twitter. This sort of cowardice would never happen in the Democratic Party.
House and Senate Republicans are so afraid to anger their cult leader that they won’t utter a whisper to defend a man who they are privately congratulating for his vote to convict the president of high crimes and misdemeanors.
The Republican Party is a truly lost cause.
Republican Congressional Cowards Sit Quietly As Trump Attacks Romney
https://www.politicususa.com/2020/02/06/trump-attacks-romney.htmlPosted on Thu, Feb 6th, 2020 by Jason Easley
Republican Congressional Cowards Sit Quietly As Trump Attacks Romney
Trump held a post-acquittal gathering at the White House where he attacked Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans cowered in fear and did nothing.
Trump said, “Then you have some who used religion as a crutch. They never used it before. An article written today, never heard him use it before. But today, you know, it’s one of those things. But it’s a failed presidential candidate, so things can happen when you fail so badly running for president.”
https://twitter.com/i/status/1225480883077099522
The congressional Republican fear of Trump has never been more obvious than it was during that moment in the White House. Congressional Republicans are spineless cowards who incapable of ever doing the right thing.
Republicans talk a big game and they love to sound tough, but they are afraid of a vindictive senior citizen with a Twitter. This sort of cowardice would never happen in the Democratic Party.
House and Senate Republicans are so afraid to anger their cult leader that they won’t utter a whisper to defend a man who they are privately congratulating for his vote to convict the president of high crimes and misdemeanors.
The Republican Party is a truly lost cause.
February 6, 2020
DNC Chairman Tom Perez Calls for 'Immediate Recanvass' in Iowa
Hoping for a different outcome? 
https://www.thedailybeast.com/dnc-chairman-tom-perez-calls-for-immediate-recanvass-in-iowa?ref=home
DNC Chairman Tom Perez Calls for ‘Immediate Recanvass’ in Iowa
‘ENOUGH IS ENOUGH’
Emma Tucker
Updated Feb. 06, 2020 1:19PM ET /
Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez called on the Iowa Democratic Party on Thursday to “immediately begin a recanvass” in the state after the caucus disaster earlier this week. “Enough is enough,” Perez tweeted, citing the “problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results.” The Daily Beast reported that a DNC aide defined Perez’s “recanvass” as a hand audit of caucus math worksheets and reporting forms to make sure that they were correctly tallied and reported in the telephone intake sheets and caucus reporting app.
The Iowa Democratic Party released partial results from Monday’s state caucuses and several updates on Wednesday. Ninety-seven percent of the vote has been released, which shows former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) almost tied for first place ahead of the rest of the Democratic candidates. Perez’s tweet comes after further delays and errors in the reporting of the Iowa caucus results.
The Iowa Democratic Party released partial results from Monday’s state caucuses and several updates on Wednesday. Ninety-seven percent of the vote has been released, which shows former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) almost tied for first place ahead of the rest of the Democratic candidates. Perez’s tweet comes after further delays and errors in the reporting of the Iowa caucus results.
February 6, 2020
Pelosi On SOTU: I Don’t Need ‘Lessons About Dignity’ From This President
By Kate Riga
February 6, 2020 12:10 p.m.
A notably animated House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) decried President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address Thursday, calling it a “manifesto of mistruths” and a “reality show” using the House of Representatives as a backdrop.
Now famously, Pelosi tore the speech in half upon Trump’s conclusion, a move which drew swift and full-throated denunciation from Trump’s allies.
When pressed on the act Thursday, she snapped that she doesn’t need “lessons about dignity” from anyone, but especially not from the President.
She added that she felt “liberated” after shredding the document, that as soon as he was about one-third of the way through the speech she knew that she had to do something to show the American people that the address was full of falsehoods.
snip//
Her voice rising, Pelosi said that it is an “absolute imperative” that America have a new President next year, one who does not “denigrate our values,” is not “disloyal to the Constitution” and does not “degrade the environment.”
“He has shredded the truths in his speech, he has shredded the Constitution with his conduct,” she thundered. “I shredded his state of his mind address.”
Pelosi On SOTU: I Don't Need 'Lessons About Dignity' From This President
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/pelosi-address-trump-state-of-the-union?fbclid=IwAR288euohdmX4364Tray4SyP_deu8ztZF00dxcCKSnv-KnOhTXl7EQyW68IPelosi On SOTU: I Don’t Need ‘Lessons About Dignity’ From This President
By Kate Riga
February 6, 2020 12:10 p.m.
A notably animated House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) decried President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address Thursday, calling it a “manifesto of mistruths” and a “reality show” using the House of Representatives as a backdrop.
“The whole State of the Union was beneath the dignity of the White House, an insult to the Congress of the United States and the American people,” she said at her weekly press conference, calling it a “state of his mind” address rather than the State of the Union.
Now famously, Pelosi tore the speech in half upon Trump’s conclusion, a move which drew swift and full-throated denunciation from Trump’s allies.
When pressed on the act Thursday, she snapped that she doesn’t need “lessons about dignity” from anyone, but especially not from the President.
She added that she felt “liberated” after shredding the document, that as soon as he was about one-third of the way through the speech she knew that she had to do something to show the American people that the address was full of falsehoods.
snip//
Her voice rising, Pelosi said that it is an “absolute imperative” that America have a new President next year, one who does not “denigrate our values,” is not “disloyal to the Constitution” and does not “degrade the environment.”
“He has shredded the truths in his speech, he has shredded the Constitution with his conduct,” she thundered. “I shredded his state of his mind address.”
February 6, 2020
E.B. White’s Beautiful Letter to a Man Who Had Lost Faith in Humanity
What sailors teach us about hope and the resilience of the human spirit.
By Maria Popova
In 1973, more than two decades after a young woman wrote to Albert Einstein with a similar concern, one man sent a distressed letter to E.B. White (July 11, 1899–October 1, 1985), lamenting that he had lost faith in humanity. The beloved author, who was not only a masterful letter-writer but also a professional celebrator of the human condition and an unflinching proponent of the writer’s duty to uplift people, took it upon himself to boost the man’s sunken heart with a short but infinitely beautiful reply, found in Letters of Note: Correspondence Deserving of a Wider Audience (public library) — the wonderful collection based on Shaun Usher’s labor-of-love website, which also gave us young Hunter S. Thompson on how to live a meaningful life.
White’s missive, penned on March 30, 1973, when he was 74, endures as a spectacular celebration of the human spirit:
Every single epistle in Letters of Note is soul-stretching beyond measure. Sample the book further with this timeless wisdom on how to find your purpose in life, then explore more of White’s wit and wisdom with his ideas on the writer’s responsibility in society and the future of reading, his timely admonition about sponsored content, and his moving obituary for his dog Daisy.
E.B. White's Beautiful Letter to a Man Who Had Lost Faith in Humanity
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/05/06/e-b-white-letters-of-note-book/?fbclid=IwAR1S9xw8UK9VncfilRYLRDFp5UC4tlMqCu-i3kY_cmpxfgaEHZInvGrGKRkE.B. White’s Beautiful Letter to a Man Who Had Lost Faith in Humanity
What sailors teach us about hope and the resilience of the human spirit.
By Maria Popova
In 1973, more than two decades after a young woman wrote to Albert Einstein with a similar concern, one man sent a distressed letter to E.B. White (July 11, 1899–October 1, 1985), lamenting that he had lost faith in humanity. The beloved author, who was not only a masterful letter-writer but also a professional celebrator of the human condition and an unflinching proponent of the writer’s duty to uplift people, took it upon himself to boost the man’s sunken heart with a short but infinitely beautiful reply, found in Letters of Note: Correspondence Deserving of a Wider Audience (public library) — the wonderful collection based on Shaun Usher’s labor-of-love website, which also gave us young Hunter S. Thompson on how to live a meaningful life.
White’s missive, penned on March 30, 1973, when he was 74, endures as a spectacular celebration of the human spirit:
Dear Mr. Nadeau:
As long as there is one upright man, as long as there is one compassionate woman, the contagion may spread and the scene is not desolate. Hope is the thing that is left to us, in a bad time. I shall get up Sunday morning and wind the clock, as a contribution to order and steadfastness.
Sailors have an expression about the weather: they say, the weather is a great bluffer. I guess the same is true of our human society — things can look dark, then a break shows in the clouds, and all is changed, sometimes rather suddenly. It is quite obvious that the human race has made a queer mess of life on this planet. But as a people we probably harbor seeds of goodness that have lain for a long time waiting to sprout when the conditions are right. Man’s curiosity, his relentlessness, his inventiveness, his ingenuity have led him into deep trouble. We can only hope that these same traits will enable him to claw his way out.
Hang on to your hat. Hang on to your hope. And wind the clock, for tomorrow is another day.
Sincerely,
E. B. White
As long as there is one upright man, as long as there is one compassionate woman, the contagion may spread and the scene is not desolate. Hope is the thing that is left to us, in a bad time. I shall get up Sunday morning and wind the clock, as a contribution to order and steadfastness.
Sailors have an expression about the weather: they say, the weather is a great bluffer. I guess the same is true of our human society — things can look dark, then a break shows in the clouds, and all is changed, sometimes rather suddenly. It is quite obvious that the human race has made a queer mess of life on this planet. But as a people we probably harbor seeds of goodness that have lain for a long time waiting to sprout when the conditions are right. Man’s curiosity, his relentlessness, his inventiveness, his ingenuity have led him into deep trouble. We can only hope that these same traits will enable him to claw his way out.
Hang on to your hat. Hang on to your hope. And wind the clock, for tomorrow is another day.
Sincerely,
E. B. White
Every single epistle in Letters of Note is soul-stretching beyond measure. Sample the book further with this timeless wisdom on how to find your purpose in life, then explore more of White’s wit and wisdom with his ideas on the writer’s responsibility in society and the future of reading, his timely admonition about sponsored content, and his moving obituary for his dog Daisy.
February 6, 2020
The Law Is for Suckers
Donald Trump’s impeachment acquittal proves that they let you do it.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Feb 05, 2020
6:21 PM
“The law is for suckers.” That has been the credo of Donald Trump throughout his personal and business life. James Zirin, in his superb book, Plaintiff in Chief, chronicles the 3,500 lawsuits to which Trump has been a party, a pattern of scorched-earth attacks that include deliberate “delay, counterattack, obstruction, deflection, confusion, threats of ruin, and blanket assertion of attorney/client privilege to avoid accountability.” These were tricks he learned from the notorious Roy Cohn, and they were largely successful in helping him evade legal accountability throughout his business career.
They were, it turns out, the same tricks Trump brought to the campaign trail and later to the White House. It was all, writes Zirin, a dangerous new approach for a president:
Donald Trump staked his career on the bet that if you’re rich, famous, brazen, and unrepentant, the law will let you do it. He staked his presidency on the same.
snip//
Nobody should be surprised that in the wake of 3,500 lawsuits, Trump will conclude that he is indeed above the law, that the legal regime exists only for suckers, and also that he can repurpose the machinery of law to investigate, harass, and punish the whistleblowers and the witnesses and those who sought to constrain him. At which point the law won’t just be the thing that applies only to losers and suckers, but also the thing that can be used to put down those who sought justice in the first place. And nobody should be surprised that having invited foreign election interference and having been acquitted for doing so, this president will use the formidable power of his Justice Department to manipulate the 2020 election, and to call into question the results of that election in the courts.
We can debate the wisdom of Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi and the ticktock of the impeachment investigation and trial—whether it should have been broader, or gone longer, or relied upon court rulings that never came. But we can hopefully agree that what they attempted to do was use both legal processes and legal arguments to show that when a president abuses the power of his office and denies accountability, it should matter. They were trying to prove that the law isn’t just there to punish asylum-seekers trapped in Mexico or black men in prisons, but that it should apply to everyone, even the wealthy, and even the people who believe it doesn’t apply to them because it never has in the past. Donald Trump staked a decadeslong business career on the bet that if you’re rich, famous, brazen, and unrepentant, the law will let you do it. He staked his presidency on the same. Republicans who deplore the death of “unity” today should remember that this was once a nation unified around at least the hope that the law was for everyone, and that going forward, it will be divided around the certainty that some people don’t answer to the courts or the Constitution. Their president will answer to nobody. All of us now answer to him.
Dahlia Lithwick: The Law Is for Suckers
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/trump-impeachment-acquittal-law-is-for-suckers.htmlThe Law Is for Suckers
Donald Trump’s impeachment acquittal proves that they let you do it.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Feb 05, 2020
6:21 PM
“The law is for suckers.” That has been the credo of Donald Trump throughout his personal and business life. James Zirin, in his superb book, Plaintiff in Chief, chronicles the 3,500 lawsuits to which Trump has been a party, a pattern of scorched-earth attacks that include deliberate “delay, counterattack, obstruction, deflection, confusion, threats of ruin, and blanket assertion of attorney/client privilege to avoid accountability.” These were tricks he learned from the notorious Roy Cohn, and they were largely successful in helping him evade legal accountability throughout his business career.
They were, it turns out, the same tricks Trump brought to the campaign trail and later to the White House. It was all, writes Zirin, a dangerous new approach for a president:
Trump is very different. His instinctive litigiousness; his abuse of the legal process to obtain leverage, not justice; his mean-spirited statements and conduct; his overblown damage claims; his many lies, exaggerations and prevarications; his willingness to sue, trash, or discard even those who did him a good turn along the way are abnormal by any standard.
Donald Trump staked his career on the bet that if you’re rich, famous, brazen, and unrepentant, the law will let you do it. He staked his presidency on the same.
snip//
Nobody should be surprised that in the wake of 3,500 lawsuits, Trump will conclude that he is indeed above the law, that the legal regime exists only for suckers, and also that he can repurpose the machinery of law to investigate, harass, and punish the whistleblowers and the witnesses and those who sought to constrain him. At which point the law won’t just be the thing that applies only to losers and suckers, but also the thing that can be used to put down those who sought justice in the first place. And nobody should be surprised that having invited foreign election interference and having been acquitted for doing so, this president will use the formidable power of his Justice Department to manipulate the 2020 election, and to call into question the results of that election in the courts.
We can debate the wisdom of Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi and the ticktock of the impeachment investigation and trial—whether it should have been broader, or gone longer, or relied upon court rulings that never came. But we can hopefully agree that what they attempted to do was use both legal processes and legal arguments to show that when a president abuses the power of his office and denies accountability, it should matter. They were trying to prove that the law isn’t just there to punish asylum-seekers trapped in Mexico or black men in prisons, but that it should apply to everyone, even the wealthy, and even the people who believe it doesn’t apply to them because it never has in the past. Donald Trump staked a decadeslong business career on the bet that if you’re rich, famous, brazen, and unrepentant, the law will let you do it. He staked his presidency on the same. Republicans who deplore the death of “unity” today should remember that this was once a nation unified around at least the hope that the law was for everyone, and that going forward, it will be divided around the certainty that some people don’t answer to the courts or the Constitution. Their president will answer to nobody. All of us now answer to him.
February 6, 2020
At the end of Trump's address, Pelosi tore her copy of the speech in half. She later called Trump's address a "manifesto of mistruths."
more...
https://www.wptv.com/news/national/congressman-files-ethics-complaint-against-pelosi-for-tearing-copy-of-trumps-sotu-speech?fbclid=IwAR25dQQyTVHz_Wf2Lt5HwDd1YBiskPsYvlBsHJ2duB_R0rsJdMDwqF6SWPo
Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz files ethics complaint against Pelosi for tearing SOTU speech
Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz files ethics complaint against Pelosi for tearing SOTU speech
Posted: 8:51 AM, Feb 06, 2020
Updated: 9:08 AM, Feb 06, 2020
By: WFTS Staff
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Florida, announced Wednesday that he is filing an ethics complaint against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for tearing up her copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union at the end of the president's address Tuesday night.
"Her conduct was beneath the dignity of the House, and a potential violation of law (18 USC 2071). Nobody is above the law. She must be held accountable," Gaetz tweeted.
At the end of Trump's address, Pelosi tore her copy of the speech in half. She later called Trump's address a "manifesto of mistruths."
"It is hard to overlook the symbolism of such a gesture — the sense that Speaker Pelosi was utterly dismissive of the President's achievements, and more importantly, the achievements of the American people," Gaetz said in the complaint. "Speaker Pelosi's gesture was deeply offense, and appears to violate clauses 1 and 2 of House Rule XXIII ("Code of Official Conduct" ). "
more...
https://www.wptv.com/news/national/congressman-files-ethics-complaint-against-pelosi-for-tearing-copy-of-trumps-sotu-speech?fbclid=IwAR25dQQyTVHz_Wf2Lt5HwDd1YBiskPsYvlBsHJ2duB_R0rsJdMDwqF6SWPo
February 5, 2020
These documents include reports of detainee deaths and sexual abuse.
National Archive to let ICE destroy documents
WHY??? They're destroying history.
https://boingboing.net/2020/02/05/national-archive-to-let-ice-de.html
hizza / 7:00 am Wed Feb 5, 2020
National Archive to let ICE destroy documents
We may never know the truth about the border crisis, writes Matthew Connelly, because the National Archives is letting millions of documents be destroyed.
President Trump has long made it a practice to tear up his papers and throw them away. It is a clear violation of the Presidential Records Act, which is supposed to prevent another Watergate-style cover-up. When the National Archives sent staff members to tape these records together, the White House fired them.
In 2017, a normally routine document released by the archives, a records retention schedule, revealed that archivists had agreed that officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement could delete or destroy documents detailing the sexual abuse and death of undocumented immigrants. Tens of thousands of people posted critical comments, and dozens of senators and representatives objected. The National Archives made some changes to the plan, but last month it announced that ICE could go ahead and start destroying records from Mr. Trump’s first year, including detainees’ complaints about civil rights violations and shoddy medical care.
In 2017, a normally routine document released by the archives, a records retention schedule, revealed that archivists had agreed that officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement could delete or destroy documents detailing the sexual abuse and death of undocumented immigrants. Tens of thousands of people posted critical comments, and dozens of senators and representatives objected. The National Archives made some changes to the plan, but last month it announced that ICE could go ahead and start destroying records from Mr. Trump’s first year, including detainees’ complaints about civil rights violations and shoddy medical care.
These documents include reports of detainee deaths and sexual abuse.
"Wherever books burn, human beings will also burn." – Heinrich Heine
February 5, 2020
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trumps-allies-suddenly-care-about-decorum-and-unity-after-pelosi-rips-sotu-speech?fbclid=IwAR2Ud9XpsEhbxOecZxhfMzhNdhT4gE_J0nFR5IM5uiODrx3jVmgQi8LCMG4
Trump’s Allies Suddenly Care About Decorum And Unity After Pelosi Tears Up SOTU Speech
Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) rips a copy of President Donald Trump’s speech after he delivers the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on February 4, 2020. (Photo by MANDEL ... By Cristina Cabrera
February 5, 2020 11:21 a.m.
A stone-faced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) ripped up President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech, sparking an uproar among the President’s allies, who suddenly take the rules of propriety very seriously.
“Have you no sense of decency, madam?” Trump’s posse cried out.
Despite the fact that Trump has hurled racist invectives at non-white members of Congress and mocked victims of sexual assault, his conservative buddies are clutching their pearls over Pelosi’s gesture and demanding for her censure.
All in good faith, of course!
Conway asserted that Pelosi should to be censured or that the Senate ought to pass a resolution “denouncing her behavior last night.”
And Charlie Kirk, president of conservative activist group Turning Point USA and strict adherent of the rule of law, went with a “lock her up” pitch.
Trump's Allies Suddenly Care About Decorum And Unity After Pelosi Tears Up SOTU Speech
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trumps-allies-suddenly-care-about-decorum-and-unity-after-pelosi-rips-sotu-speech?fbclid=IwAR2Ud9XpsEhbxOecZxhfMzhNdhT4gE_J0nFR5IM5uiODrx3jVmgQi8LCMG4
Trump’s Allies Suddenly Care About Decorum And Unity After Pelosi Tears Up SOTU Speech
Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) rips a copy of President Donald Trump’s speech after he delivers the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on February 4, 2020. (Photo by MANDEL ... By Cristina Cabrera
February 5, 2020 11:21 a.m.
A stone-faced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) ripped up President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech, sparking an uproar among the President’s allies, who suddenly take the rules of propriety very seriously.
“Have you no sense of decency, madam?” Trump’s posse cried out.
Despite the fact that Trump has hurled racist invectives at non-white members of Congress and mocked victims of sexual assault, his conservative buddies are clutching their pearls over Pelosi’s gesture and demanding for her censure.
All in good faith, of course!
“It was shameful to see Nancy Pelosi rip that paper up last night,” Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel told Fox News host Ainsley Earhardt on Wednesday morning. “I think it’s symbolic of the division [Democrats] have brought to our country.”
“What is wrong with her?” asked White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway during an interview on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom.”
Conway asserted that Pelosi should to be censured or that the Senate ought to pass a resolution “denouncing her behavior last night.”
“The speech she ripped up was a one-of-a-kind record, signed by POTUS and full of stories of Bravery, Heroism and Patriotism,” White House social media director Dan Scavino lamented via Twitter. “It belonged to the AMERICAN PEOPLE, not to her. What a disgusting display of raw partisanship!”
“The President walks in and hands that to the speaker of the House and the vice president. Those are the official documents,” an indignant House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told the hosts of “Fox and Friends.” “He signs those!”
And Charlie Kirk, president of conservative activist group Turning Point USA and strict adherent of the rule of law, went with a “lock her up” pitch.
“Nancy Pelosi may have just committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071, Section 2071 (a) when she ripped up President Trump’s State of the Union address,” he tweeted. “This violation is punishable by up to three years in prison.”
February 5, 2020
The State of the Union Was a Visibly Degenerate Variety Show
The address was a joke Donald Trump played on the House.
By Jim Newell
Feb 05, 2020
1:05 AM
For most of President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address Tuesday night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi contained herself. She offered to shake Trump’s hand at the beginning of the speech, an offer he declined. As he spoke, she flipped through an unbound text copy of the speech the way one might review a fresh batch of tax forms, and stood occasionally to recognize a soldier, a widow, or a United States–backed but otherwise unsuccessful claimant to the Venezuelan presidency. She enforced discipline, ensuring that no members of her caucus were rude during this grand tradition. At one point, she gave a death stare to her members who clapped for Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter was killed in the Parkland, Florida, massacre, when he protested the speech’s gun rights advocacy and was escorted from the room. Guttenberg was Pelosi’s own guest.
It was unusually out-of-character, then, when Pelosi made a show of ripping up Trump’s speech immediately after he concluded. But even the most strained performance of normalcy couldn’t survive the full spectacle of the address. The speech is being described as a Trumpian reality show for its assortment of stunt-pegged character callouts in the gallery. It was more of a variety show, though, divided into alternating segments of election-season appeals to the middle, gags, and abrupt fascism. It was a joke he played on the House majority.
snip//
On the surface, it was all as direct and literal as a game show. Education policy? The little girl gets a scholarship! Afghanistan? Here’s one of the troops, brought home, right now! What wasn’t mentioned head-on in the speech was the most relevant fact about the president and the presidency: an acknowledgment from Trump that he had recently been impeached in the room where he was speaking and, for the next 19 or so hours, would remain under impeachment in a Senate trial.
But revenge over impeachment was the subtext of the entire display. He wanted to make a mockery of Nancy Pelosi’s House. It wasn’t just the snubbed handshake. He wanted her to watch, and bite her tongue, as his wife gave Rush Limbaugh the highest civilian award in the country in her chamber. He wanted to throw in an applause break after every single line, to show her the loyal Republicans cheering on cue again and again, the same way they’ll line up to acquit him at trial. He wanted to throw another two or three gruesome sentences into his perfunctory smearing of undocumented immigrants, while she sat there. He wanted to say, in front of her, that “we will always protect patients with preexisting conditions, that is a guarantee” while his administration is currently fighting in court to eliminate the entire Affordable Care Act under a triple-bank-shot legal technicality. It was a three-ringed troll job at a moment when his approval rating is up—not up above 50 percent, but he’s never needed a majority to do what he wants—and Democrats can’t come up with a countermove.
The State of the Union Was a Visibly Degenerate Variety Show
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/donald-trump-state-of-the-union-degenerate.htmlThe State of the Union Was a Visibly Degenerate Variety Show
The address was a joke Donald Trump played on the House.
By Jim Newell
Feb 05, 2020
1:05 AM
For most of President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address Tuesday night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi contained herself. She offered to shake Trump’s hand at the beginning of the speech, an offer he declined. As he spoke, she flipped through an unbound text copy of the speech the way one might review a fresh batch of tax forms, and stood occasionally to recognize a soldier, a widow, or a United States–backed but otherwise unsuccessful claimant to the Venezuelan presidency. She enforced discipline, ensuring that no members of her caucus were rude during this grand tradition. At one point, she gave a death stare to her members who clapped for Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter was killed in the Parkland, Florida, massacre, when he protested the speech’s gun rights advocacy and was escorted from the room. Guttenberg was Pelosi’s own guest.
It was unusually out-of-character, then, when Pelosi made a show of ripping up Trump’s speech immediately after he concluded. But even the most strained performance of normalcy couldn’t survive the full spectacle of the address. The speech is being described as a Trumpian reality show for its assortment of stunt-pegged character callouts in the gallery. It was more of a variety show, though, divided into alternating segments of election-season appeals to the middle, gags, and abrupt fascism. It was a joke he played on the House majority.
snip//
On the surface, it was all as direct and literal as a game show. Education policy? The little girl gets a scholarship! Afghanistan? Here’s one of the troops, brought home, right now! What wasn’t mentioned head-on in the speech was the most relevant fact about the president and the presidency: an acknowledgment from Trump that he had recently been impeached in the room where he was speaking and, for the next 19 or so hours, would remain under impeachment in a Senate trial.
But revenge over impeachment was the subtext of the entire display. He wanted to make a mockery of Nancy Pelosi’s House. It wasn’t just the snubbed handshake. He wanted her to watch, and bite her tongue, as his wife gave Rush Limbaugh the highest civilian award in the country in her chamber. He wanted to throw in an applause break after every single line, to show her the loyal Republicans cheering on cue again and again, the same way they’ll line up to acquit him at trial. He wanted to throw another two or three gruesome sentences into his perfunctory smearing of undocumented immigrants, while she sat there. He wanted to say, in front of her, that “we will always protect patients with preexisting conditions, that is a guarantee” while his administration is currently fighting in court to eliminate the entire Affordable Care Act under a triple-bank-shot legal technicality. It was a three-ringed troll job at a moment when his approval rating is up—not up above 50 percent, but he’s never needed a majority to do what he wants—and Democrats can’t come up with a countermove.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: NY
Home country: US
Current location: Florida
Member since: Mon Sep 6, 2004, 09:54 PM
Number of posts: 171,042
