Nancy Pelosi Threatens to Commit Obviously Unethical and Illegal Action

Ex-leader of the "most open and honest Congress" (or whatever the exact quote was), publicly threatens to release information it's not legal to release.

Nancy Pelosi never really had any clue what she was doing or realized how stupid everything that comes out of her mouth is, but never before has she bragged about planning to break House rules. The exact quote:

Quote :

“One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi told Talking Points Memo earlier Monday. “When the time is right. … I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff."

Good to know that even as the ranking Democrat of the House, she can find the time to make an ass out of herself with laughable and poorly veiled threats. This would be like everything else out of her mouth, irrelevant, if it weren't for the fact that actually following through on the threat is very much illegal. Newt sez:

Quote :

“That’s a fundamental violation of the rules of the House and I would hope that members would immediately file charges against her the second she does it,” he said.

Pelosi is beginning to distance herself from the comment. In fact, if she back peddles any harder, she's going to moonwalk through the wall of the Capitol Building (not to be confused with the Verizon Center, home of the Capitals).

Quote :

In a response on Twitter, Pelsoi's office pushed back against the notion that she had threatened to reveal private information from the investigation.

Pelosi "was clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record," wrote Drew Hammill, Pelosi's press secretary.

Which is obviously horseshit. If it were in the public record, she wouldn't be able to fucking reveal it.

Pelosi was always a bit of a dingbat, but now it seems she has completely lost her wits.

And she killed Rickrolling, man.

As if we needed secret dox to know that Newt is a complete dumbfuck anyway

the asylum wrote:

As if we needed secret dox to know that Newt is a complete dumbfuck anyway

The trouble is there are so many docs right out there in the open about him that our "liberal" media have no idea where to look first. Oh well, if Nancy Pelosi's willing to point them at the most damaging reams of dirt, they may actually do some reporting. It'd be a nice change.

rachel wrote:

the asylum wrote:

As if we needed secret dox to know that Newt is a complete dumbfuck anyway

The trouble is there are so many docs right out there in the open about him that our "liberal" media have no idea where to look first. Oh well, if Nancy Pelosi's willing to point them at the most damaging reams of dirt, they may actually do some reporting. It'd be a nice change.

If you genuinely believe that neither MSNBC, CNN, nor any of your hyper liberal blogs and such haven't already went through every page of the publicly available dox, looking for any possible incriminating detail, there's no hope for you.

If you seriously think Pelosi wasn't originally talking about divulging restricted information, you're either a tool or a fool.

I got one good question, why isn't pelosi gonna hit Willard "My first name's Mitt" Romney? He needs it more than Newt(on) Gingrich.

Reidmar wrote:

I got one good question, why isn't pelosi gonna hit Willard "My first name's Mitt" Romney? He needs it more than Newt(on) Gingrich.

The media is already reporting on Romney's sleaziness. Also, Romney is about as popular as a virgin at an orgy.

Reidmar wrote:

I got one good question, why isn't pelosi gonna hit Willard "My first name's Mitt" Romney? He needs it more than Newt(on) Gingrich.

Mitt may be a zero-charisma corporate overlord douchebag, but he never was never investigated (and censured) for ethics violations by the House Ethics Committee.

What better can we expect from Ms. "We have to pass the bill for you to find out what's in it" anyway? Pelosi's always been a total moron. I can not find it in myself to be surprised that she didn't get why revealing Gingrich broke House rules by breaking House rules herself is a bad thing until some of her staff explained it to her.

KelinciHutan wrote:

What better can we expect from Ms. "We have to pass the bill for you to find out what's in it" anyway?

You know, I've read that quote and similar here and there, but never from any credible source, and never with a link to any video or audio clip. Can you show me where some solid proof is that she actually said that?

ETA: Never mind, I've found a link! From FOX News. She did say that! (Unfortunately, everything else was cut away. For all I can tell the full quote would be "The honorable opposition would have you believe that we have to pass the bill for you to find out what's in it." ) Now I'm hoping you can point me at a link that shows what she said before and after that. I don't see any links to that on YouTube. Hmmm.

rachel wrote:

KelinciHutan wrote:

What better can we expect from Ms. "We have to pass the bill for you to find out what's in it" anyway?

You know, I've read that quote and similar here and there, but never from any credible source, and never with a link to any video or audio clip. Can you show me where some solid proof is that she actually said that?

Ta. Da. She starts talking about health care around 3:00. She starts talking about the controversies around the bill around 7:00. This quote comes in at around 7:30.

Lady Anne wrote:

Reidmar wrote:

I got one good question, why isn't pelosi gonna hit Willard "My first name's Mitt" Romney? He needs it more than Newt(on) Gingrich.

The media is already reporting on Romney's sleaziness. Also, Romney is about as popular as a virgin at an orgy.

1.) His first name is fucking Willard? I knew their was a reason I didn't like him. Fucking Mormons.
2.) Newt is leading "Willard" by a statistically significant margin in all the polls I've seen.
3.) Pelosi never investigated "Willard," so she wouldn't have dirt on him it's against House Rules to divulge.
4.) I feel like the virgin may be one of the more popular people at an orgy.

Let's fix that metaphor. Naturally, I suggest something sports related or a fat joke. Like "As popular as Bucky Dent in BAWWWWston" or "As popular as Michael Moore at a Weight Watcher's meeting."

"As popular as Penguin at Bronycon" comes to mind as a better metaphor. Probably not. Penguin would throw a shit-fit and butt-clench to the point he grows a monkey-tail.

TheIan wrote:

"As popular as Penguin at Bronycon" comes to mind as a better metaphor. Probably not. Penguin would throw a shit-fit and butt-clench to the point he grows a monkey-tail.

oh for Christ's sake
Ian I thought Penguin was being a bit of a butthurt jackass too but come on
This is Chris91 shit

KelinciHutan wrote:

rachel wrote:

KelinciHutan wrote:

What better can we expect from Ms. "We have to pass the bill for you to find out what's in it" anyway?

You know, I've read that quote and similar here and there, but never from any credible source, and never with a link to any video or audio clip. Can you show me where some solid proof is that she actually said that?

Ta. Da. She starts talking about health care around 3:00. She starts talking about the controversies around the bill around 7:00. This quote comes in at around 7:30.

Thank you so much! No wonder they cut out the rest of what she said.

Electron Blue wrote:

TheIan wrote:

"As popular as Penguin at Bronycon" comes to mind as a better metaphor. Probably not. Penguin would throw a shit-fit and butt-clench to the point he grows a monkey-tail.

oh for Oh for Christ's sake...
Ian, I thought Penguin was being a bit of a butthurt jackass too, but come on!
This is Chris91 shit.

If I was pulling Chris91 shit, I'd dedicate PAGES of a thread claiming it's Penguin's fault, Blue. Trust me, I don't do infantile flailing.

TheIan wrote:

Trust me, I don't do infantile flailing.

This thread to the contrary?

TheIan wrote:

Electron Blue wrote:

TheIan wrote:

"As popular as Penguin at Bronycon" comes to mind as a better metaphor. Probably not. Penguin would throw a shit-fit and butt-clench to the point he grows a monkey-tail.

oh for Oh for Christ's sake...
Ian, I thought Penguin was being a bit of a butthurt jackass too, but come on!
This is Chris91 shit.

If I was pulling Chris91 shit, I'd dedicate PAGES of a thread claiming it's Penguin's fault, Blue. Trust me, I don't do infantile flailing.

"PAGES" start with one post.

rachel wrote:

Thank you so much! No wonder they cut out the rest of what she said.

You mean because it was boring, because it was irrelevant, or that it's just too hilarious that she was talking about "putting Americans to work" just before pushing the single biggest job killing piece of legislation passed since Smoot-Hawley?

Ian wants in Penguin's butt. Proof here for all to see. brb gotta write fanfic

Ian so what about an RP

TheIan wrote:

If I was pulling Chris91 shit,

Every Time Chris Does This wrote:

If I were being a real child,

also ian you don't need to passive-aggressively grammar-check me when I'm writing like this
it's a deliberate stylistic choice
deeeeerrrrrrp

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

rachel wrote:

Thank you so much! No wonder they cut out the rest of what she said.

You mean because it was boring, because it was irrelevant, or that it's just too hilarious that she was talking about "putting Americans to work" just before pushing the single biggest job killing piece of legislation passed since Smoot-Hawley?

Or because the rest of what she said doesn't make her comment any less stupidly condescending. We're talking about a piece of legislation so incredibly problematic that it was ruled unconstitutional in over half the states in the country and now, thanks to a contrary ruling in some others, requires the SCOTUS to wade in and sort things out. Honestly, with the rest of what she said, this comment is even worse. This is a problematic bill on a number of levels, a lot of people saw this coming and were saying so very loudly, and her response to all of that--talking directly about the controversies, remember--is, "Well, once we pass it, everyone will eventually shut up and live with it!"

"They" cut out the rest of what she said to be nice.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Or because the rest of what she said doesn't make her comment any less stupidly condescending. We're talking about a piece of legislation so incredibly problematic that it was ruled unconstitutional in over half the states in the country

Wow, that's the first I've heard that two judges in two states="over half the states in the country". You're confusing the judgements with some state's challenges to the law by governors or attorneys general. They are not the same.

Quote :

and now, thanks to a contrary ruling in some others, requires the SCOTUS to wade in and sort things out.

The sooner, the better, but they don't seem to be terribly eager to do so.

Quote :

Honestly, with the rest of what she said, this comment is even worse. This is a problematic bill on a number of levels, a lot of people saw this coming and were saying so very loudly, and her response to all of that--talking directly about the controversies, remember--is, "Well, once we pass it, everyone will eventually shut up and live with it!"

"They" cut out the rest of what she said to be nice.

No, what they cut out (and what you missed) is that she was speaking to an audience of people who supported the bill and liked what was in it* in spite of constantly hearing "OMG death panels!" and "Socialism" and all the rest of the hot air being spouted by know-nothing yutzes from guess-which-party.** You also missed that the majority of the public was too busy trying to make a living to be concerned with how the new law was going to affect them even though there was no secret about any of its provisions.* These are the people who weren't going to learn what was in the law until after it passed and began to affect them personally. People like Spike Dolomite Ward*** are just now starting to find out things about the bill that they hadn't heard from the "liberal" media, and they're liking what they see.

*The bill, in its entirety and in summary, had been posted online for months, long enough that anybody who cared to educate themselves about what was in it could have done so.

**To be fair, there was also plenty of hot air from the left wing about how the law wasn't progressive enough.

***Not kidding, that's her name.

Edited to fix grammar.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Or because the rest of what she said doesn't make her comment any less stupidly condescending. We're talking about a piece of legislation so incredibly problematic that it was ruled unconstitutional in over half the states in the country

Wow, that's the first I've heard that two judges in two states="over half the states in the country". You're confusing the judgements with some state's challenges to the law by governors or attorneys general. They are not the same.[/quote]
Perhaps you would care to read the article in question?

Forbes wrote:

Most analysts were expecting a ruling in favor of the 26 states hoping to overturn the bill.

bolding mine

Multiple states were involved in the challenge to the law. Heck, on page two it even links to a document giving the full text of the judge's ruling from the Florida court, which lists the specific states to which the ruling applies. They are the following: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Twenty-six out of fifty is 52%. Thus, "over half."

KelinciHutan wrote:

and now, thanks to a contrary ruling in some others, requires the SCOTUS to wade in and sort things out.

rachel wrote:

The sooner, the better, but they don't seem to be terribly eager to do so.

Which mitigates Pelosi's statement exactly how again? What does this even have to do with anything, actually? So the Supremes are dragging their heels. So what? That's not relevant or even interesting.

rachel wrote:

*The bill, in its entirety and in summary, had been posted online for months, long enough that anybody who cared to educate themselves about what was in it could have done so.

Nobody knew what was in it, even those people who tried to (of which, by the way, I am one). It was over two-thousand pages long (close to three, IIRC, though I'm less certain there), and changed radically every few days. I downloaded at least two copies from the House website at the time, and they didn't even look similar, let alone contain similar wording. Eventually, I had to give up on making sense of them and delete them. Even people in Congress didn't know what was in it. There was, at no point in time, a single version of the bill posted online--in whole or in part--from an official source that remained unchanged for even one month, let alone several.

Look, we've already done the Obamacare debate. It was boring the first time. You asked for a source for Pelosi's statement. I gave it to you. Naturally, you won't think it's condescending when you agree with her and use the same condescension in your post ("OMG, those working people and folks with weirdo names must've never bothered to actually look at the bill otherwise they would like it, so what could they know about it anyway?"), so it's not surprising you missed it. I'm not foreseeing any future productive discourse here, so this is me throwing in the towel. Later, gator.

rachel wrote:

You also missed that the majority of the public was too busy trying to make a living to be concerned with how the new law was going to affect them even though there was no secret about any of its provisions.* These are the people who weren't going to learn what was in the law until after it passed and began to affect them personally.

"These people are too stupid to know what's good for them, lucky I'm here to babysit them."

1.) You're a deluded, rabidly egotistical assclown and everything that's wrong with America, nay, the western world.

Except for Ireland. There are other things wrong with Ireland.

2.) It's begun to affect people personally, and they HAET it.

rachel wrote:

*The bill, in its entirety and in summary, had been posted online for months, long enough that anybody who cared to educate themselves about what was in it could have done so.

The problem was that none of the idiots in Congress falling over themselves to vote for the bill had done that.