↓
 
Home » Watch Nancy Pelosi’s facial expression…

Watch Nancy Pelosi’s facial expression…

The New Neo Posted on by

…as she announces adoption of the first article of impeachment.

First there’s a secret smile of glee, like the cat that swallowed the canary. It’s very fleeting, though; she suppresses it almost instantaneously. Then immediately, after putting on a stern face, she “shushes” the Democrats in schoolmarmy fashion in order to make sure they can’t be accused of celebrating.

The rapid change of Pelosi’s expressions occurs over a period of about three seconds, between 3:33:54 and 3:33:57 (NOTE: they changed the video after I posted that, so now it’s at 11:34:07 to 11:34:10). I’ve cued it up to show the passage (it helps to change the settings to slow down the speed and also to make it full screen):

And now Pelosi says that she’s thinking about not sending the approved articles to the Senate at this point. Fascinating. Does she really think US voters will be impressed by the theatrical production she’s been directing?:

Voicing concern about Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s willingness to hold a fair trial, Pelosi announced for the first time that she might not, in fact, be in a rush to send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate. She said instead she wanted to hear more about how the Senate planned to conduct the trial first.

I think she’s already heard, though. McConnell has already said that he’ll be okay with doing it the way it was done – with bipartisan approval – during Bill Clinton’s trial:

“Back in 1999, all 100 senators agreed on a simple pre-trial resolution that set up a briefing, opening arguments, senators questions, and a vote on a motion to dismiss,” McConnell described.

“I’ve hoped and still hope that the Democratic Leader and I can sit down and reproduce that unanimous bipartisan agreement this time,” McConnell said. “His decision to try to angrily negotiate through the press is unfortunate.”

“But no amount of bluster will change the simple fact that we already have a unanimous bipartisan precedent. If 100 senators thought this approach is good enough for President Clinton, it ought to be good enough for President Trump,” McConnell said.

“I hope House Democrats see reason and pull back from the precipice, but if they proceed, I hope the Democratic Leader and I can sit down soon and honor the template that was unanimously agreed to the last time,” he added.

[NOTE: I didn’t want to ignore today’s Horowitz hearing, but as I said earlier there was a lot of news happening. I hope to take it up tomorrow.]

Comments

Watch Nancy Pelosi’s facial expression… — 76 Comments

  1. Not a lawyer, but why wouldn’t each of the senators currently still in the presidential race have to recuse themselves? One would think it’s a clear conflict of interest.

  3. Yes there is a “smile of glee” in her face.

    At this point I’ve come to realize that the Democrats might have known all along that they will not get “rid” of Trump. They might have also realized that they cannot win the presidency in 2020. And, they most certainly have realized by now that, no matter how hard they wish it, they cannot undo Trump’s win. This is their “nightmare” they just won’t wake up from.

    So, they have pushed this through so that, in the very least, Trump now has a “stain” on his legacy as being impeached. At least, that is what I think they are thinking. I also think they don’t realize that this is really a stain (in the eyes of those who pay attention to history, and don’t just browse headlines in the MSM) on their party.

  4. “If 100 senators thought this approach is good enough for President Clinton, it ought to be good enough for President Trump,” McConnell said.

    Brilliant.
    Also commendable is his stand on “you investigated, we judge” — there are no do-overs, as Hillary Clinton once said in 2008.
    However, I don’t think he should have given the Democrats a target by talking about coordinating with the White House.

  5. Eva Marie:

    Did you read the comments to that article you linked? What the Democrats are doing is not a brilliant move, IMHO and in the opinion of most of the commenters. It sounds awful to most normal Americans. And it likely can be maneuvered around by the GOP.

  6. I’m confused.

    I’ll admit that as a ‘Senior Citizen’ I get easily confused.

    We just heard 230 House members tell us that The President of The United States was such a Clear and Present danger to the Nation that he must be IMMEDIATELY removed from office.

    But now that he has been impeached we can wait for months or even years before the trial to remove him from office can be held?

    And the democrats think THAT will sway public opinion in their favor?

    Someone, please, relieve me of my confusion.

    I’ll look tomorrow as I’m going to bed now.

    Thanks In Advance.

  8. And now Pelosi says that she’s thinking about not sending the approved articles to the Senate at this point. –neo

    In an earlier topic I was spitballing about possible Pelosi Choices. One was that the House would impeach Trump in such a way that there could be no Senate trial.

    I have my moments.

  10. If they decide not to send it over to the Senate, it is indeed a sham-peachment.

    (Cannot remember where first heard this pun.)

  11. If they decide not to send it over to the Senate, it is indeed a sham-peachment.

    I’m feeling whimsical tonight. From F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Ice Palace,” one of his great early stories. A young man has driven up to a young woman’s house. She regards him from her upstairs bedroom window. He speaks:

    “What you doin’?”

    “Eatin’ green peach. ‘Spect to die any minute.”

    I almost like Pelosi in that clip. I can imagine her young and coy, toying with the boys.

  12. I should think that Mitch McConnell would simply say that the Senate has set a date for the commencement of the trial, and that if the House of Ill Repute, I mean Representatives, do not present their case at that time, it will be assumed that there is none. That their vote was a frivolous exercise, meaning nothing.

    I fervently hope that if Pelosi tries to hold the President, and the Senate, hostage to her little games that she will be badly burned.

  13. Aesopfan, the charge that he is coordinating with the White House is frivolous. Mitch controls the docket, but the defendant certainly should have a say as to whether he wants time to present a defense..

  14. Of course she is happy. Impeachment is eating up all the air. Keeping many other facts from coming out Stocks, Jobs while at historic highs are completely ignored.
    Also the IG report is being completely ignored. And surprise surprise. Epstein’s previous jail tapes suddenly disappeared today.

    The Democrats are able to blunt the news shifting away from them. And try to damage the president for his reelection campaign all in one fell swoop.

    My prediction is they refuse to send the articles to the Senate. Until such time as they need to block other news from surfacing.

  15. And the democrats think THAT will sway public opinion in their favor?

    Someone, please, relieve me of my confusion.

    I’ll look tomorrow as I’m going to bed now.-Tuvea

    Let me try to help. I think the Democrats know there is zero chance it will.Its about making any bad news about how the impeachment came to pass in the first place. Able to be ignored by a willing press. Its about firing up their base to avoid losing any of their bastions of power. And in doing so keeping much of the corrupt bureaucracy in place.

    Its a long game. Currently they are sacrificing several pieces to keep the game going

  16. “I’m confused.

    I’ll admit that as a ‘Senior Citizen’ I get easily confused.

    We just heard 230 House members tell us that The President of The United States was such a Clear and Present danger to the Nation that he must be IMMEDIATELY removed from office.

    But now that he has been impeached we can wait for months or even years before the trial to remove him from office can be held?

    And the democrats think THAT will sway public opinion in their favor?

    Someone, please, relieve me of my confusion.

    I’ll look tomorrow as I’m going to bed now.

    Thanks In Advance.”

    Unless I’m mistaken, this “case” can’t be held over to the next Congress, it must be taken care of by this Congress, which expires in Dec 2020.

  17. The impeachment has always been about besmirching Trump, trying to discourage his voters, and trying desperately to encourage their base to turn out. So, holding on to the impeachment articles “works” for them by keeping them on the offensive.

    And, no, the older ones who have worked all their lives to achieve a permanent power in our national gov’t, and the younger, stupider (more indoctrinated in the progressive religion) ones who are so eager to achieve their marxist nirvana, really don’t grasp how the country is viewing them. They really do think they’re on offense, as opposed to just being offensive.

  18. Rich Vail on December 19, 2019 at 5:52 am said:

    it must be taken care of by this Congress, which expires in Dec 2020.

    That’s long enough to get through the next presidential (and congressional) election. And that’s what really matters.

    After all, they can just impeach him again in his next term. As often as they need to, in order to overturn what are obviously (to any ‘rational’ progressive!) fraudulent elections.

  19. from now on, every president will be impeached when the opposite party controls the House

    I’m not the first to suggest this by a long shot, but I believe it

  20. Anyone that is taking this seriously needs to take a deep breath and reconsider.
    When you see any identified Democrat coming, it’s tantrum time. That is tedious in a child you love; it is noxious in a political party. I would think their own adherents would be sick of these toddlers.

    I don’t think Pelosi, Schiff, and Wadler are thinking about this right. Schumer must be drinking heavily. Can you imagine a worse look to an undecided voter than staging all this nonsense and then not moving it forward?

    I am going to give these wayward infants of the Republic a tip. End this as fast as you can. You are annoying and boring, and you clearly just want attention. And most people are either indifferent towards you or increasingly hostile. Those kids from next door that are telling you to keep going and stopping people on the street to shout about how important you are (the MSM), they are not your friends.

    You are about to be sent to bed with no dinner.

  21. Does she really think US voters will be impressed by the theatrical production she’s been directing? [Neo]

    Yes. This is an illustration that history’s dynamic includes some inexorabilities. The Democrats cannot stop because they DO believe that somewhere, underneath the tweets and the ballots, a majority of Americans will agree with them. They can look at the popular vote of 2016 and reassure themselves. So what if a few million of those ballots were phonies?

    They are driven to this by their own situation. They have no new political ideas. They have no new program. They must take what has worked and push it to the limit. It has worked before so it just needs a bigger effort! Free stuff. Demonizing the opponent. Proclaiming their superior morality. The right side of history. More free stuff.

    Only a walloping at the polls in November can change this. If it comes, their defeat will look inevitable because of everything that is being said here on this site and others. How could they have gone so crazy, we will ask. The answer is clearly that they had to. The internal logic of their positions brought them to this extreme and there was never any real opportunity to do it differently. Entitlement and hubris.

    Of course, that walloping in November is not inevitable, is it? Other developments could intercede. But the Democrats have prepared the ground for it and it sure seems the most likely outcome.

  22. I too am confused, but for a different cause: I put the youtube on expecting to see Speaker Bad Faith Pelosi and instead was treated to Rep. Mary Gay Bad Faith Scanlon, D-Pa5! Timestamp seems to checkout with neo’s parameters ok. So, what’s up?

    Me, I’m not up for searching around for another glimpse at Speaker Bad Faith Pelosi’s ugly, contrived mug. Indeed, Marg Bar Speaker Bad Faith Pelosi!

    Marg Bar FISC! Marg Bar NPR! Marg Bar PBS! Marg Bar BBC! Marg Bar Khamenei!

    Buncha goddamned bad faith sonsabitches needing fed into running woodchippers, the lot of ’em.

  26. The Dem media and normal people don’t want to ruin Christmas with politics.

    Nor with Dem bias at WaPo with “Merry Impeachmas”.

    But the silly impeachment votes are actually a good way to distract from IG Horowitz, who failed to say FBI actions are criminal actions, but at least did specify many dishonest “mistakes” of the FBI.

    FBI crimes IS the real news, but Dem pushed Sham (& Shame) Impeachment is the heavily publicized Fake News, that takes up too many column inches among those who care, and those who care less; and even those who couldn’t care less.

  28. FBI crimes IS the real news

    It’s news. However, the wholly partisan weaponization of good Constitutional provision of means to escape tyranny for the purpose of imposing another sort of tyranny is also news — and not an amusing sort of news, either. On the contrary, it’s the sort of news which ought to evoke running woodchippers. Get Asplundh arborists on the line: we’re gonna need a fleet of ’em lined up on the National Mall.

  29. I think there’s a much longer game at play here. Delaying the send over is another tactical ploy. They know eventually they will lose the battle in the Senate. That’s OK with them. This “delay” is just setting more groundwork for November 2020. I think it was yesterday that Schiff in an offhand comment let the cat out of the bag when he mentioned about how the Trump is already cheating in the election. The long term strategy here is to build up a mountain of evidence, including the “unfair Senate trial” that Trump and the Republicans are cheating at every step along the way. The day after the election in November they can then declare the election null and void.

    What bothers me most is that every explanation I’ve seen from the great comments here, or anything I come up with to explain their bizarre behavior, all points to some sort of violence and tearing apart of the country next November. Others here have told me to take a chill pill, but I can’t shake the feeling.

    And like sdferr I couldn’t get the time stamp to work also.

  30. 6th amendment, right to a speedy trial.
    McConnell can set the convening date, if the prosecution doesn’t show up- case dismissed.

    Let’s get back to confirming judges/justices….

  31. No, I never found Pelosi either. My belief, physicsguy, is that a bad enough defeat from the voters will deliver the real verdict and knock the elderly leadership and a lot of the young lefties into Green Acres or pumping gas at the Lukoil station. It’s the only outcome that makes any sense of the data, IMO.

  32. The Democrats are like the dog that finally caught a car. Unfortunately, the dog firmly clamped its jaw to the front bumper of a still moving car.

  33. Is she thinking she can hold it for an advantage in the election? Sounds dumb, but I think the whole thing is dumb.

    It would be so nice if Congress would do its real job in regular order, and not waste huge amounts of time on garbage while passing massive omnibus spending bills with twenty-four hours’ notice. It’s disgusting.

  35. The Left does have the capability to mobilize massive and noisy protests. This is another ticking time bomb that needs to be defused.

  37. Maybe it’s just being on the other side of it this time but it sure seems like this impeachment is more performance art than what happened with Bill Clinton.

    Mike

  38. physicsguy: What bothers me most is that every explanation I’ve seen from the great comments here, or anything I come up with to explain their bizarre behavior.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/466304-pelosi-explains-what-she-was-saying-to-trump-in-viral-photo-all-roads-lead-to

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday she was delivering a simple message to President Trump as she stood and departed a contentious White House meeting the previous day: “At that moment, I was probably saying, ‘All roads lead to Putin.'”

    ********************************************

    This statement was made in a private meeting in the White House which indicates that she actually believes that Trump is a Russian mole. It is amazing that the US intelligence budget is over $80billion/year (https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/ic-budget) but they can’t figure out if Trump is a Russian agent and were unable to provide any evidence to Mueller to support Pelosi’s assertion. If Pelosi is that deluded then one cannot expect rational behaviour.

  39. All you have to realize is that underneath everything being done by the Democrats is the assumption by them that, “You have to listen to us, WE ARE BETTER PEOPLE THAN YOU ARE!”

  40. And, physicsguy, I am also worried about violence.

    This isn’t the proper order, I think, Kate. It should be Speaker Bad Faith Pelosi and her lickspittles who worry, not you. You, after all, have the greater claim to sovereignty here than do these hirelings who populate the House to steal your liberties and prosperity. It is they who should be afraid, not the people who employ them. And yet, we do see these hirelings operate in terrible bad faith, with impunity, with contempt, with disdain. They come now to deserve destruction, in spades. Let them have it.

  41. “She said instead she wanted to hear more about how the Senate planned to conduct the trial first.”

    Mitch should tell her, “None of your damn business, House member.”

  45. I am sure Democrats believe that the vote to impeach Donald Trump was in furtherance of ‘truth, justice and the American way.” But, to quote none other that Gladstone, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Therefore, if Nancy delays sending over the articles, she is guilty of obstruction of justice. Prove me wrong.

  46. BTW…the only time I have ever sent a letter to my congressman…was when I thought he was WRONG in voting for impeachment of Bill Clinton. I thought that was a personal matter and that it did NOT amount to “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

  47. texexec: …. I thought he was WRONG in voting for impeachment of Bill Clinton. I thought that was a personal matter and that it did NOT amount to “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

    From the NYT, Oct 1, 2001.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/01/national/clinton-disbarred-from-practice-before-supreme-court.html

    Clinton Disbarred From Practice Before Supreme Court

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.

    ****************************

    Strange that you can be disbarred from practising law before the high court for your actions but those same actions are not “high crimes and misdemeanors”. What crimes are discluded from “high crimes and misdemeanors” or is it a case of some being more equal than others in the eyes of the US law?

  48. I confess that I read the headline as “Nancy Pelosi’s farcical expression” at first. Upon reflection, it seems to work just as well.

  49. Neo:
    I believe that the place you are referring to in the video starts at 11:51:39 not 3:33:54

  51. Dennis:

    Thanks. Yes, they changed the video and put up an expanded version, so my original times ended up being wrong because they referred to the original video. I fixed it – for now.

  52. Andy:

    Actually, one can be disbarred for reasons that are not crimes. Also, Clinton’s law license was suspended (in Arkansas) for 5 years rather than being disbarred there. The permission to practice in front of the Supreme Court is a special thing not granted to all lawyers, and Clinton lost that privilege (I believe they were about to revoke it and then he withdrew himself, but that point is a technicality) but was not “disbarred” from practicing law entirely.

    But I think what “texexec” probably meant is that – as many legal expert believe – “high crimes and misdemeanors” triggering possible impeachment was meant to refer to actions committed on state business, not things connected with a matter such as Clinton’s sex life. You may disagree, and many people disagree. But texexec’s is a valid position that I think has merit.

  53. The problem with that valid position of merit, though, Neo, is that you are saying that it is OK for a President to be guilty of perjury.

    That was a case of the higher standards of the “greatest generation” meeting the lower standards of the Boomer generation.

  54. So so sick of Pelosi & her high school antics ( everybody lets all wear the same dark color, it will impress the deplorables they ll want to be part of the cool kids & wear dark colors too & lets all talk about our kids & grandkids ( the ones we made millionaries with our graft)
    But shhhh don t let anyone know about that, just our little secret.

  55. Neo: Clinton’s law license was suspended (in Arkansas) for 5 years rather than being disbarred there. …. but was not “disbarred” from practicing law entirely.

    I am familiar with that detail as well as the associated fine. My point is the exact one made by Kai Akker above so I won’t repeat it.

    MollyNH: “…lets all talk about our kids & grandkids ( the ones we made millionaries with our graft)”

    Read somewhere, “they send our kids to Afghanistan and theirs to Ukraine.”

  56. Neo….you explained my position better than I did. Clinton committed adultery and lied about it..I don’t approve of that but it’s not a crime against the state. If we exclude the presidents who have committed adultery we’d have damn few presidents in modern times. Think FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Clinton, and even (some say) GHW Bush.

  57. texexec:

    By the way, I basically share your position on the Clinton impeachment. I think one needs to have high crimes and misdemeanors plus it must have something to do with the person’s work as president. I had that position back when it happened, and I have that position now.

    I believe that is also Alan Dershowitz’s position, if I’m not mistaken.

    Plus, with the Clinton impeachment the GOP was also impeaching when they basically knew there would be no conviction. That seems dumb to me, as well, in the more practical sense.

  58. No, What Clinton committed and then lied about under oath was his affair with a subordinate that would have gotten any CEO of a major company (and a few high up military guys) strung up – that is sexual harrassment of a subordinate. But we all know these rules don’t apply to democrats, so why he perjured himself is what is a mystery to me.

  60. texexec: Clinton committed adultery and lied about it..I don’t approve of that but it’s not a crime against the state. If we exclude the presidents

    You are conflating two things here. Nobody said anything about him committing adultery as reason for impeachment. Clinton should have taken a page out of Trump’s book and said, “yep, it was the beautiful!” and that would have been the end of that.

    Neo: … high crimes and misdemeanors … must have something to do with the person’s work as president.

    If after hours, during the evening, a president goes out to the red light district in DC for a quickie and a hit of cocaine it is AOK?

  61. why he perjured himself is what is a mystery to me [fiona]

    Best chance to avoid the alternative of getting vincefostered by his wife.

  62. By the way, Clinton probably did not perjure himself, in the legal sense. See this for a discussion.

    And in the Senate, the perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against

  63. Not sure why a Senate committee shouldn’t begin hearings, for the ostensible purpose of recommending to the full Senate whether the House’s articles of impeachment do, in fact, specify actionable high crimes and misdemeanors sufficient to be a cause for trial. This would get what we all know on the record for future rewriting historians …
    AND, given how scope creep works in Congress, allow for them to start cross-examining the House’s witnesses and do some investigative examination of related matters touched on by the House investigation, such as Comey/FISA, Biden, FBI/CIA misbehavior, DNC/Hillary/Obama, etc.
    [Assign to a Senate committee NOT involved in any positive work being done, such as getting judges confirmed…]

  64. Not sure why a Senate committee shouldn’t begin hearings…

    Because it’s a waste of time and energy as regards the farcical charges against the President. It’s not needful. It’s pointless.

    As to other investigations of other matters, fine, but don’t pile them onto the impeachment debacle. Make them stand on their own. Keep things clear. Don’t fuck around.

  65. By the way, Clinton probably did not perjure himself, in the legal sense. See this for a discussion.
    And in the Senate, the perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against. [Neo]

    I’m more persuaded by the congruent decisions by the Supreme Court to disbar him practicing before them and by the state of Arkansas’ suspension of his law license.

    As Fiona said, it was not “just about sex.” Clinton’s behavior was so tawdry that it put him into trouble in several categories. Then he lied about it under oath in the deposition. As the years have shown, from his selling pardons while still in office, to the Clinton Foundation corruption and his frequent rides on the Lolita Express, the Republican case was on the money.

  66. Was there not evidence of Clinton suborning perjury in telling Monica to sign an affidavit denying the occurrence of events which actually took place? In my scale of values that is more significant than lying about sex.

  67. “I think one needs to have high crimes and misdemeanors plus it must have something to do with the person’s work as president.”

    So…Donald Trump COULD shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and that wouldn’t be grounds for impeachment?

    Without relitigating the whole Clinton mess, I think it’s pretty clear that letting him get away with it was a big step down the road which led us here. Yeah, it’s unfair to use that kind of 2020 hindsight but it’s awful hard to come up with a plausible alternate history where kicking Bill to the curb would have resulted in a worse outcome while it’s pretty easy to see how removing him could have led to some huge positive differences in the last 20 years.

    Mike

  68. Rich,

    Thanks for the explanation. I guess it’s just ‘politics’.

    I don’t know how moderates will feel about it but I’m certainly voting for President Trump and every Republican I can in the general election.

    I’ll probably vote in the democrat primary and the most extreme candidates on the ballot. Not that it will matter all that mush living here in Northeast Illinois.

  69. Mike is right, sort of, tho I think “Pres. Al Gore” would have been re-elected in 2000, and been in office 9/11. I’m not at all sure the world in 2020 would have been better in that case, but it seems likely to me that it would have been much different.

    Pres. Clinton was guilty of sexual harassment AND perjury, and the immoral but no longer criminal act of adultery (on multiple occasions). So I thought he should have been impeached, and convicted, and a little bit less swamp in DC.

    I also voted in ’76 for Carter (my first vote! oh well. 🙁 ) partly because Ford pardoned Nixon. I thought that Nixon should go to jail. Now I’m less sure on that, but more sure that gov’t officials who commit crimes should much more often be indicted and tried – and I’m sure there would be more convictions and punishments.

    Part of me is wondering if Pres. Trump isn’t readying more ads about the Do Nothing Democrats who only want Shams and Hoaxes and Fake News — so that Trump and Reps win House, Senate, and Pres. in 2020. I’ve read that many independents do sort of feel sorry for how bad the Dem media has been treating Trump. The Dems like the bad treatment. My guess is that The Donald is letting Mitch call the Senate shots, with limited input from Trump on what he “wants” — he’s getting ready to counterpunch either way, with a short or a long trial. And letting Mitch handle it is likely to make Mitch more of an ally, itself a valuable positive for Trump, along with all the fund raising and energizing of the base.
    .

    I don’t fear Dem Leftist violence so much. Their vision of themselves requires the moral superiority of non-violent protesting, and when there is violence by Dems, it actually weakens this aspect of virtue signaling, even when they justify it by claiming how evil the Trump supporters are.

  70. Their vision of themselves requires the moral superiority of non-violent protesting, [Tom]

    “I need some muscle over here!”

  71. sdferr, I do think I am more likely to be a victim of violence than are leftists. When I see a lefty bumper sticker or t-shirt, I don’t rush over to hit the owners. I don’t plan to begin doing so. The same is not true when people wear Trump shirts, hats, or bumper stickers on their cars. Unprovoked violence and car damage often ensue. Rioters, who are going to be leftists, often injure innocent people and damage businesses having nothing to do with the conflict. I lived through the 1960s, when we had bombings and riots.

  72. ” This statement was made in a private meeting in the White House which indicates that she actually believes that Trump is a Russian mole …”

    To what imagined end, I wonder. The domination of the world by “godless communism” under the direction of the Soviet Union?

    Oh, wait, the Soviet Union is long gone.

    It is remarkable to see the party of Stalinists Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, and Uberprogressive Ted Kennedy of “Overture to Andropov” fame, going insane now that the Soviet Union is dead and broken up, and Russia is just a shadow of the existential menace that was once the Soviet Union.

    But they are mad as hell and ready for war. Because Russia gamed them in particular and showed them up as the scheming deceptive morons that they are.

    Yet back then when real and powerful interests were a threat to the life and liberty of all Americans, well, not so much.

    ” ‘ Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the general secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information. ‘ ”

    and,

    ” according to the letter, Kennedy then offered up the possibility of having top media personalities such as Walter Cronkite, Barbara Walters, and Elton Raul, president of the board of the ABC television network, travel to Moscow to do television interviews with Andropov.

    ‘ The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side,’ the letter to Andropov says.” https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/12/14/ted-kennedy-made-secret-overtures-to-russia-to-prevent-ronald-reagans-re-election/

    Yeah, Demonicrats, our “fellow Americans”, as Lying Lyndon Now in Hell Johnson, used to say.

  73. they have pushed this through so that, in the very least, Trump now has a “stain” on his legacy as being impeached.

    Never wrestle with a pig…
    you both get dirty, but the pig likes it

  74. Kate, I feel I owe you an answer, some comment pertinent to your concerns. I understand how you worry, even why this is so.

    Yet, the point I had tried to make goes not to your (or our) individual capacities, singled out as apart from our membership of that oddly dual beast, the proper sovereign, the rulers who are ruled. Something is amiss — upside-down — when those representatives we send to work on our behalf in the Federal government lord it over us and do in no way fear our power as sovereigns over them. It isn’t that I expect you alone to physically confront these fools, surely not. On the other hand, the people as such (of whom we are members) number in the couple hundred millions, and of these some considerable portion ought to be capable to put a genuine fear into the likes of the Pelosis, Schiffs, Schumers and Nadlers in our midst, apart from mere empty threats of acts in the voting booth. The lords and ladies of the Congress ought to have a nagging anxiety somewhere prominent in their consciousness, inescapable, present to recall. We are not their toys, their amusements, their frivolous playthings. They need reminding, and if some jostling is necessary, then jostling let there be.

  76. but it’s awful hard to come up with a plausible alternate history where kicking Bill to the curb would have resulted in a worse outcome while it’s pretty easy to see how removing him could have led to some huge positive differences in the last 20 years. [MBunge]

    ITA. But the system did its job and said that your view of Bill Clinton, my view of Bill Clinton, and the view of the opposition party on Bill Clinton, were not clearcut enough to reverse the 1996 election results.

    The impeachment failed, but I think there were real grounds for it — unlike the present instance — and the effort was worthwhile. It clarified that his forms of Presidential misbehavior, though they may have included a perjury, did not produce sufficient revulsion across the society to make our elected representatives unite in a guilty verdict. OK, issue settled.

    Of course, we have to wonder if there is ANY misbehavior from a Democratic politician that would produce revulsion within their own party.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑