Nancy Pelosi is a fugging genius

[malaise]

Here comes the impeachment vote on Thursday. Fear of RW judges goes out of the window with this decision.

Keep walking Speaker - sister Nancy!!!
Bam Bam - what a bam bam!!!

Go Dems!

[Iliyah]

1. K & R

[trueblue2007]

15. We love Nancy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Celerity]

2. Sister Nancy - Bam Bam

[malaise]

3. This one works

[Celerity]

4. my link didnt work?

[malaise]

6. Sometimes different links work in different countries

[Celerity]

9. true, I am geoblocked here in the EU from many US sites and links due to our GDPR

General Data Protection Regulation

that many US sites refuse to honour

[Teach-only-love]

35. I need to use a VPN in order to listen to MSNBC

[Celerity]

40. I have no issues with that, try these

https://streamfare.net/msnbc.html

https://www.livenewsmag.com/msnbc-news-live-stream/

https://www.livenewsnow.com/american/msnbc.html

https://usnewstoday.live/msnbc-live-streaming/

[Poiuyt]

8. Both links worked for me

Of course, at my advanced age, this is what I thought of:

[Celerity]

10. +100000

[malaise]

11. hahahahahha

[calimary]

38. First thing I thought, too, Poiuyt!

[Patterson]

5. I don't understand about the right wing judges.

[malaise]

7. Re subpoenas

I still believe most of the courts will have no choice but to side with the House of Representatives

[stopdiggin]

13. do we still try to go about enforcing

those subpoenas? And will the courts give them equal hearing or weight with this new action? I'm unclear about the details here.

(I think we need to establish that Congress has this right .. for future disputes. The idea of the imperial presidency is just as dangerous as Trump. And I don't think there's any doubt that future presidents will try ...)

[malaise]

14. Great post

The Con hasn't appealed yet but if he does it's in Merrick Garland's hands.

[StarfishSaver]

16. They appealed Judge Howell's ruling this morning

They also asked for a stay, but she hasn't yet ruled on the motion.

[malaise]

18. Thanks - missed that

[Indykatie]

12. Pelosi is Brilliant

She waits until the country has seen enough evidence to know Trump is guilty of various crimes and THEN call for a vote in the House. This is only a risky vote for Republicans. They will be stuck with their Thursday vote throughout the election cycle.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. You're kidding. She's finally calling for a vote? Great

Enter everyone who said we couldn't and shouldn't vote!

[Bettie]

19. Yep, glad that

this is continuing to move forward.

They are spooked...I'm in Iowa.

Ads running in every program I turn on, aimed at house members, all about how they are "trying to overturn an election"...sponsored by Trump/Pence 2020 and never once do they indicate that he's innocent, just that he can't/shouldn't be investigated.

[Ahpook]

82. Interesting

I am seeing quite the opposite in Nashville. This is redneck capitol, but seeing quite a few commercials about impeaching the Orange One

[stopdiggin]

21. when we had the votes, the evidence, the narrative, and some public opinion

check, check, check, and check.
Such a bunch of wimpish surrender monkeys!

[ehrnst]

37. +1000. She never said it was off the table, despite the protestations and handwringing

of many.

The process is moving forward, as per the right circumstances, as she has said all along.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

51. Many is the operative word...70 something percent

Of OUR party!!

[ehrnst]

65. Sadly, that's not 70 percent of the country.

So, that's not the definition of "bipartisan support."

[Laura PourMeADrink]

66. Never knew we had to get the opposition to agree

To do what is right.

[ehrnst]

94. Not the same thing at all. The public is not "the opposition."

And it's certainly hasn't been unanimous on the part of Democrats.

Do you consider Democrats who didn't/don't think that impeachment will turn out well for Democrats in 2020 to be "the opposition?"

Do you therefore consider Speaker Pelosi "the opposition?" Perhaps you don't remember the failures of the Tea Party because they considered any bipartisanship to be "surrender." The job of our elected leaders is to move forward with legislation and get things done, rather than behave like Boehner and McConnell. Without bi-partisan support in the public, impeachment is an exercise in self-congratulation, and self-immolation. Personally, I'd like to see us win in 2020, because no matter how self-satisfied we are, we can't get a damn thing actually done if we don't.

I think this post in this thread would be helpful for you to read.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12633141

[Laura PourMeADrink]

96. Opposition Republicans and other trump loyalists

[ehrnst]

98. It sounds like you are lumping anyone who had or has any reservations about impeachment

together.

And like I said, Pelosi knows that without bippartisan support, impeachment will ultimately be a self serving self immolation.

Much like voting for Jill Stein to "send a message to the Democratic Party" about whatever.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

113. Ya, don't believe that at all. Where does it say you have to have bipartisan support.? Don't care

About opposition whatsoever.

[ehrnst]

114. "I" don't have to have bipartisan support. Pelosi stated that it was one condition for impeachment.

She, unlike either of us, knows this subject deeply, and doesn't want impeachment to be an act of self-immolation for Democrats in 2020. She is the one tasked by House Democrats to make this call.

“If and when the time comes for impeachment—it will have to be something that has such a crescendo in a bipartisan way,” Pelosi, the decisive player in any potential move by Democrats to impeach Trump, told CBS in an interview that aired Sunday.

Is that clearer?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

116. Clear. Check. Always was. Just 100% don't agree.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

45. Well buzz kill..not a real vote...just process. Ah, the

Illusive authorization vote (the no shit we aren't obligated by law vote), the stand up and declare with an unequivocal AYE would go a hell of a long way toward energizing our base.

[StarfishSaver]

25. She's not calling for a vote to open an impeachment inquiry

That's a Republican talking point.

The resolution won't authorize the opening of an impeachment inquiry. It will lay out the parameters and procedures for the process moving forward, which is a very different thing.

This is consistent with what was done in past impeachments when, completely separate from a resolution authorizing the opening of an impeachment inquiry, the House has passed resolutions setting out the procedures for the impeachment process already under way.

"Pelosi caved and is holding a vote to authorizing an impeachment inquiry" is not only false, it's the Republican talking point, so I hope you won't help them disseminate it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

46. Exactly..a republican talking point - they DON'T want

To have to go on record with a no!!!

[soldierant]

52. At least some who said we shouldn't vote

may already have changed their minds based on other news in the past few days. Things change very fast.

I've in the past said it wasn't time for (this or that). In hindsight, I think every step we have taken has been at exactly the right time, including this vote. At this point, the only thing I still feel it's not yet time for is sending itto the Senate. I espect that to change too, as circumstances continue to change.

[NurseJackie]

20. I trust Nancy Pelosi's judgement on this. She knows what she's doing.

Experience we can TRUST!

We all owe her a great deal of gratitude. And several loudmouths owe her an apology for the horrible things they've said about her.

[malaise]

23. Some didn't want her to be Speaker

Remember!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

29. Which is their right. Everyone's right. To be cast

as horrible dissenters is horribly undemocratic.

[NurseJackie]

32. It wasn't the dissent... it was the ugly insults and sexist comments and ageism...

To be cast as horrible dissenters is horribly undemocratic.

Nobody is doing that. It wasn't the dissent... it was the ugly insults and sexist comments and ageism and obscenities that were hurled at her. She is owed an apology by many.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

42. Never heard a single person say anything like that.

Not sure why you keep saying it. Never saw anything like that at all...unless you are talking about speakership vote????

Besides thought you "ignored" me.

[NurseJackie]

47. If anyone didn't hear it (or read it) then they weren't paying attention.

Never heard a single person say anything like that.

If anyone didn't hear it (or read it) then they weren't paying attention. Or, maybe it didn't strike them as being inappropriate, and therefore it was forgettable.

Besides thought you "ignored" me.

I may have hidden a stupid thread or two, but I do not recall "ignoring" you. I suppose it's possible, but not likely. Sometimes I agree with you (but not often.) Maybe you're thinking of someone else.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

53. Still wonder when you are talking about because

I am here all the time and never saw it. For that matter, we all felt we had to always preface with.... "admiration, good at job, years of service.". All true, but shouldn't be necessary to just make a point on what our party was going ( or not doing). Our party is not just one person. And the House is not just one person.

[NurseJackie]

55. Nobody is saying that.

Our party is not just one person. And the House is not just one person.

Nobody is saying that. It makes no sense for anyone to argue against something that nobody is saying. --- However, I can tell you that she is our Speaker, she's experienced, she's thoughtful, she's smart and she's patient (unlike her critics.)

All I can tell you is that it really serves no good purpose for people to be saying and doing things that undermine her, or that try to diminish her, or that question her intelligence, or that ridicule her, or that interfere with her, or that attempt to portray her as being fearful, or incompetent. It also serves no good purpose to make excuses for those who do those things. Being "young" or "eager" isn't enough reason to treat Speaker Pelosi with such disrespect and contempt.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

75. That's just it no one here is saying any of what

you said. It is 100% about the actions. Not everyone believes it is the best course. Many do. Just the way it is.

[NurseJackie]

77. Not my problem.

It changes nothing of what came before.

[ehrnst]

101. +1000. (nt)

[Cetacea]

58. Me neither

I did see some people anxious to keep things moving after the Barr debacle but nothing that was hateful of Nancy, or women. This is DU

[mcar]

61. Really?

It was all over this board. You must have been off for a while then.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

67. Nope. Some examples please or just stop accusing please.

[NurseJackie]

79. Nobody is "making accusation"... we're telling you how it was.

Accept it or not... it won't change the facts. Do your own research if it troubles you so much. Good luck finding deleted posts.

[BlueCaliDem]

83. I see what you did there!

And you're totally correct in doing so!

[mcar]

85. This +1

Thanks Jackie!

[malaise]

99. I agree with you but I am omly speaking about the bots

and there are more than a few on DU.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

112. Fair enough M !

[Arazi]

69. Links to those posts slamming Nancy? Thanks

[StarfishSaver]

70. Gaslight much?

[Arazi]

71. Gaslight?

The good nurse can prove her point or stop smearing DUers

[StarfishSaver]

72. Indeed

It's amusing watching people who engaged in the over-the-top trashing of Pelosi - and were, in fact, the most fervent of those doing it - now playing dumb and demanding that people waste their time going back to dig up examples of what we all know they wrote (and risk getting a hide). They must think everyone is as stupid as they pretend to be.

But disruptors gotta try to disrupt, right?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

76. Perfect description disrupter. Accusing people

Of something they never said or did and not providing anything to back it up is disrupting!

[StarfishSaver]

78. LOL. Surely you must know that I know that you know we both know better than that

[Arazi]

81. I get their game now. Tag teaming each other

Desperate.

Folks who accuse DUers of smearing Dems like Pelosi can put up or shut up imo. I'm happy to get a pm with links if they're afraid of calling folks out publicly. But they never provide proof of such nefarious DUers

[Laura PourMeADrink]

86. Yes, it's a technique to squelch free speech & debate

on the actual pros and cons of an issue. You focus exclusively on any contrary view, not on its merits, but as an "attack" on the person or persons who hold the opposite view. Even if there is no evidence of an attack at all!

[Nature Man]

93. and once you encapsulated this truth

they all went silent.

Things that make you go "hmmmm?"

[Laura PourMeADrink]

97. You nailed it. That's also the flaw in the tactic. Unless

people are writing things that are intrinsically rooted in our core values or in opposition to our rival's actions, it isn't natural for everyone here to agree. Few here would think..wow, this handful of people all agree, it must be right. It actually does the opposite...makes people think exactly what you did..."hmmm"

[NurseJackie]

74. LOL

Nobody is being smeared.

[NurseJackie]

73. LOL

Most were deleted. It would have been hard to miss them. Don't believe me? No matter. Others confirm the same, so you don't have to trust only me.

[Arazi]

80. Ok so you have no proof, just smearing DUers

[Laura PourMeADrink]

87. It appears that way.

[LanternWaste]

108. You honestly missed months of Pelosi-doesn't-jack posts?

I s'pose a simple search of your own would reveal much more than you then realize.

I also s'pose you'll rationalize avoiding it.






I'd guess sometimes it feels better to score a self-defined point than actual search and research to better slake the curiosity.

[Arazi]

111. She made the accusation. I asked for proof..the burden isn't on me

Or you can back it up, that works too.

That isn't really what this is about though and I believe most know it. It's been a common enough game here to make these vague accusations in order to stifle any discussion or debate that doesn't mirror the groupthink.

So anyone who wasn't 100% with Nancy Pelosi, anyone who wanted to debate the pros and cons of her strategy is now smeared.

And I'll save you some time and energy searching I didn't comment on those threads one way
way or another. I just dislike this particular passive aggressiveness when it comes up here

[Laura PourMeADrink]

118. You missed the point. Critique of no action, delayed action is completely

acceptable discourse and was held by many Dems. We are referring here to the repeated accusation that people here have been personally attacking Pelosi. It is defamatory. And when asked for specific examples the accusers disappear.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

117. Circling back...still no links....

[erlewyne]

22. Nancy, I cannot believe your patriotism

I mean, I can, but there is just something special about you.
I served my country for people like you. I was there in 67-68-69
and when I got out I was exasperated. What a waste, LBJ, Nixon,
etc. (not Jimmy Carter). My life was wasted... then along came Nancy.
I will love you forever. And you will make my grandchildren proud.
(two are serving right now).

[panader0]

34. Here's to you erlewyne.....

[ehrnst]

43. ....

[malaise]

115. Great post

[CaptainTruth]

24. From what I've seen it's not a vote on impeachment, it's a vote on a process resolution.

In other words, a vote on a resolution that outlines how the impeachment process will proceed.

[malaise]

28. Correct n/t

[StarfishSaver]

36. Exactly. But the Republicans, with an eager assist by some DUers, will try to spin it that way

I understand why the Republicans are lying about it - she's got them in a bind. But why would anyone here buy into the lie and then push it to others?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

26. Oh. It's not a real vote it's about procedures going forward.

[Bonx]

30. That's pretty close i guess.

[Cetacea]

60. hmm n/t

[mcar]

27. Yes!

[George II]

31. Every step in these proceeding have been carefully calculated. I wish we could go back again...

...to the spring and summer when she was bashed by many for "going too slow". You can't proceed until you have a case, and she's pretty close to having a solid case for impeachment.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

48. Yes..too slow. He committed impeachable offenses

A LONG time ago.

[RudyColludie]

33. man, I hope so!

[regnaD kciN]

39. I don't get the logic here...

“Fear of RW judges”…? Lower court judges have already ruled in the House’s favor. And this will inevitably go to SCOTUS who, if they so choose, will make up some new precedent to rule in Trump’s favor, even if every single box has been checked.

[BumRushDaShow]

41. Here is Speaker Pelosi's latest tweet - what they are to vote on are rules for the next phase

Link to tweet

TEXT

Nancy Pelosi
✔
@SpeakerPelosi

The House has been following the facts and the evidence has only made the President’s own words on his call more appalling. This resolution will set up the structure for the next phase where the American people can hear those facts for themselves in open hearings. #TruthExposed
"This resolution establishes the procedure for hearings that are open to the American people, authorizes the disclosure of deposition transcripts, outlines procedures to transfer evidence to the Judiciary Committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment, and sets forth due process rights for the President and his Counsel."
824
5:29 PM - Oct 28, 2019

[Thekaspervote]

44. Kudos to speaker Pelosi... leadership unparalleled

[FakeNoose]

49. Malaise you have gone non-stop in your praise for Nancy Pelosi

Thanks for keeping the faith all this time. You Rock!
You have made such a difference on DU.

[StarfishSaver]

50. Hear Hear

Malaise is a badass!

[malaise]

57. That's you

[StarfishSaver]

59. I think now she's just forking with them ...

[malaise]

63. She's giving them lessons on the Constitution and Rule of Law

versus mob rule. It's hilarious to watch - the fucking dunce has met his better.

[malaise]

56. Nancy grew up in politics and she studied this stuff

She has worked at every level. She's not bluffing or guessing like the Con. There is nothing like observing a seriously intelligent and professional person at work. Nancy is a safe bet. It is the Con and his tea party goons who are the neophytes.

Thanks - DU is a classroom where I learn something new daily,

[mcar]

62. To malaise

[malaise]

64. That should be to Nancy

[mcar]

68. Yep, her too

[saidsimplesimon]

54. Thanks for the cue, here we go

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[malaise]

100. Love it

[Miles Archer]

84. Another "I regret that I can only rec this thread once" thread

Damn straight, Malaise.

I kept my mouth shut during the impatient days...I'm one of the people who was thinking "IMPEACH THE MF" while watching him scowl at his inauguration.



No matter how much I wanted to bang that drum, I kept thinking "She'll do it when the timing is right."

And YES...there are 10 accounts of obstruction in the Mueller report,

And YES...MUCH of the public hasn't read it, and YES...the MAGAts and probably a large number of "undecideds" see the 4 page Barr whitewash memo AS "The Mueller Report." NO COLLUSION! NO OBSTRUCTION! FULL EXONERATION!



But the Ukraine call?

Pretty damned simple, pretty damned condemning, and pretty well corroborated across the boards.

She knew what she was doing.

That was enough.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

88. Exactly

And YES...there are 10 accounts of obstruction in the Mueller report,

[malaise]

90. She knew the dam was going to break

[GulfCoast66]

89. Speaker Pelosi realizes this is a marathon, not a sprint.

She always said Trump would impeach himself and totally ignored the pressure to impeach until the Ukraine thing made it apparent to all Americans he was abusing the office. Even republicans. They see it but just keep lying. Had that not happened she would never supported impeachment.

And now she is taking it slowly, slowing following all the steps and leads. Because she understands the real battle. 2020.

Due to gerrymandering and so many small, totally red states the republicans will never vote to convict. And she knows that trump will always have his 35%. And they always vote.

But they key was peeling off the Non-plugged in Americans and all the plugged in Independents. Creating a narrative of a corrupt president. She has done that.

Americans can’t wait to vote in 2020. At this point I don’t care if we keep getting more damning information out for the next 12 months and never impeach.

Since 2016 only 2 things have mattered. 2018 and 2020. We won the first. Speaker Pelosi is determined to win the second.

[malaise]

92. Great post

[Sogo]

109. Excellent points! nt.

[whopis01]

91. Republicans have gotten their wish - an impeachment vote!

I really hope it gets pointed out that the House is holding an impeachment vote because Republicans demanded it.

Point it out over and over.

[malaise]

107. I disagree - the House was always going to hold this vote

but when Speaker Nancy and her Committee Chairs were good and ready.
Fuck the Con and his ReTHUG enablers.

[whopis01]

110. I know they were. But I love the irony of the Republicans

demanding an impeachment vote.

[BlueJac]

95. K&R

[7wo7rees]

102. Illustration for Politico by Piotr Lesniak, one of my favorite illustrators

[StarfishSaver]

103. WOW! Thanks for sharing this!

[malaise]

105. Thank you

[Lady Freedom Returns]

104. I've said this before.

She plays three dimensional chess.
MF45 can barely play patty cake.

[StarfishSaver]

106. And his Patty Cake is half-assed

because he doesn't like clapping for anyone but himself and, besides, the baker's man is a real looooser.