General Discussion

mr_lebowski

(33,643 posts)

27. Nancy's bit is awesome ... however it's not actually answering the question being asked.

Fri Apr 5, 2019, 01:40 PM

Apr 2019

Which is, of course, coming from someone obviously from the Trump camp, let me be clear.

The question being asked is essentially 'what legislative purpose is served by having Trump's tax returns? What law could you pass (as a result of having them) that you could not act upon now?'.

So the question is not 'what law allows you to ask for them'.

The way this is edited makes it look like her answer is actually a non-sequitur, or a misunderstanding of the question.

Is this truly Nancy's answer to that particular question? I rather hope not, because it's not a good answer to that question.

I mean it's a dumb freaking question to begin with ... to be sure, but ...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

You had me at "I'll read it to you," Nancy. [View all] kpete Apr 2019 OP

"The law is very clear." Blecht Apr 2019 #1

He put his tiny hand on the book and SWORE to uphold the laws of this nation. Haggis for Breakfast Apr 2019 #40

trump doesn't believe in laws. spanone Apr 2019 #2

Neither does his law-and-order, strict-construction party dalton99a Apr 2019 #4

Exactly. And I'm afraid the Democrats will TrishaJ Apr 2019 #22

I'm afraid you may be right about arrests. bitterross Apr 2019 #39

Agreed. TommyCelt Apr 2019 #23

Damn. That was badass. Dave Starsky Apr 2019 #3

Nice! (n/t) corbettkroehler Apr 2019 #6

Irrelevant! Mnuchin Must Protect Drumpf's "Privacy" corbettkroehler Apr 2019 #5

This will not go to the Supreme Court. crazytown Apr 2019 #24

I Sure Hope You're Right But Tremble In Fear (n/t) corbettkroehler Apr 2019 #31

I would think in no uncertain terms that Kav will be impeached defacto7 Apr 2019 #32

Experience we can trust! NANCY PELOSI ROCKS!!! NurseJackie Apr 2019 #7

To Seth Moulton and Kurt Schrader and the other Pelosi refuseniks calimary Apr 2019 #18

I did and do Laura PourMeADrink Apr 2019 #21

They don't know that 3rd-person SHALL is imperative. raging moderate Apr 2019 #8

They speak Amurikan, not that foreign language, English! csziggy Apr 2019 #9

Right. "But it doesn't say 'will,' or 'must.' pangaia Apr 2019 #20

Clearly. calimary Apr 2019 #30

The reporter's question seemed to be that there wasn't a law on the books gratuitous Apr 2019 #10

Dumb reporter. dalton99a Apr 2019 #11

Actually, that wasn't it at all FBaggins Apr 2019 #34

Nobody is saying that Congress has unlimited power gratuitous Apr 2019 #35

Of course there are limitations on that power FBaggins Apr 2019 #36

Our side is so damned smart! samnsara Apr 2019 #12

Who's the reporter, which media outlet? SMC22307 Apr 2019 #13

It is not possible for me to admire her more than I do now, but I do! ffr Apr 2019 #14

Republicans do not LogicFirst Apr 2019 #15

Those eyes. God, I love Pelosi's eyes tymorial Apr 2019 #16

Well said, Speaker Pelosi! Yet again! FakeNoose Apr 2019 #17

I will bet 10 farthings, watoos Apr 2019 #19

It's called "oversight." Look it up. Fritz Walter Apr 2019 #25

"Shall" in legal terms is direct and unambiguous. Every lawyer and Judge knows the significance of Pepsidog Apr 2019 #26

Nancy's bit is awesome ... however it's not actually answering the question being asked. mr_lebowski Apr 2019 #27

SHALL JGug1 Apr 2019 #28

Mama Nancy schools again! NastyRiffraff Apr 2019 #29

Exactly. defacto7 Apr 2019 #33

"Shall" is even stronger than "will." This isn't liberal interpretation. The law *is* clear. n/t Beartracks Apr 2019 #37

Pelosi is a Strong and Savvy Politician - I Loved Watching Her School those Silly Reporters dlk Apr 2019 #38

Awesome Highway61 Apr 2019 #41