The Letter Speaker Pelosi Sent To House Members

From Politico:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued Vice President Mike Pence an ultimatum on Sunday night — invoke the 25th Amendment to remove President Donald Trump in the coming days or Democrats will proceed this week with impeaching the president for an unprecedented second time.

She did so in a letter that you can read here. 

Politico says that:

...if Pence refuses to act, Democrats will immediately move to force Trump from office for his role in inciting violent riots at the Capitol on Wednesday linked to at least five deaths, including a police officer.

An interesting part of the letter is found tucked into its 6th paragraph:

I look forward to our Caucus call tomorrow. I am grateful to all Members for the suggestions, observations and input that you have been sending. Your views on the 25th Amendment, 14th Amendment Section 3 and impeachment are valued as we continue.

We all know the 25th Amendment (Section 4, specifically) details how a Vice President can temporarily remove a President from office when "the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. But what is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?

This is the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I realize that's very legislative-wordy. Here's the important part:

No person shall be a...Representative in Congress,...who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress,...to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

Now, who do you think that's addressed to? 

Among dozens of others, I am thinking Representative Guy Reschenthaler should be very interested in that discussion, don't you?

Because sexism is dead

.

Speaker Pelosi's Mouse

Yesterday, I told you about how Jack Kelly (inadvertantly or not) spread the "Pelosi's mouse" story in his weekly column.

Here's more about the story (though not, to be fair, about Jack) from the Mercury News. This was published, by the way, on the 12th of February (which would be last Thursday):

The tale began Wednesday, when Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, sent an e-mail to reporters and political leaders that noted Republican staff members have been asking federal agencies how they would spend the stimulus money.

"One response? Thirty million dollars for wetland restoration in the San Francisco Bay Area — including work to protect the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse," wrote Steel.

The Washington Times then wrote a story citing Steel and claiming that $30 million for the mouse project is contained in the bill. The paper suggested the money was put there by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco. Blogger Matt Drudge, whose Web site receives 26 million hits a day, posted a link to that story.

And by midday Thursday, the tiny salt marsh harvest mouse — and Democratic supporters of the stimulus bill — had been ridiculed by hosts Megyn Kelly and Bill Hemmer on Fox News; Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana, on CNN; MSNBC host Joe Scarborough and by bloggers from coast to coast.

Steel, however, said The Washington Times story is incorrect.

Really? Tell us more!

"There is no language in the bill that says this money will go to this project," Steel told the Mercury News. "There are large pots of money in the bill that go to various agencies. One of those agencies said the salt marsh harvest mouse project is something we'd do if you gave us the money."

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hamill agreed that funding for the mouse is not in the bill, and said she did not lobby for it to be on any list.

Remember this was published on Thursday February 12. And yet it made it into Jack's column on Sunday.

Better yet, it's in today's editorial at Ronald Reagan's favorite newspaper, The Washington Times. Take a look:

Many economists are aghast at the hodgepodge spending and warn of dangers ranging from hyperinflation to stagflation (but it is true that with 100 economists in a room, you may get 200 opinions). The most insulting piece of it was a modest $30 million House Speaker Nancy Pelosi inserted to protect the salt marsh harvest mouse, a tiny rodent indigenous to the San Francisco coast - an obvious earmark in a bill that Mr. Obama said with a straight face would be "earmark free."

As I said before - ah, the right wing noise machine. Amazing, isn't it?

Another Pelosi Smear

Last February, I spent a little time on Ruth Ann Dailey's smear of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. I'm posting this as a pre-emptive strike against what would sure to be another smear from Ruth Ann.

A blog prophylactic, if you will.

Here's the story as it's shown up at the AP:

Republicans are accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of including a provision in a water redevelopment bill that could benefit property her husband owns in San Francisco.

Their details:

Pelosi's measure would authorize $25 million to improve San Francisco port areas, and also would put some areas off limits to navigation so cruise ships could dock.

Her investor husband gets rental income from four buildings in a nearby commercial district.

The smear begins. She inserted the project to boost the rental income for her husband's buildings nearby.

That's probably all you'll hear from Jack Kelly, Ruth Ann Dailey and maybe even Mike Pintek.

The AP story, though, has more information. Up front (as in, the second paragraph):

Aides to the San Francisco Democrat denied any connection, noting that the waterfront improvements were requested by the Port of San Francisco and the four rental properties in question are at least a mile away.

But we all know the response, right? OF COURSE her aides would say that! Doesn't necessarily mean that it's true, right?

Well, Greg Sargent over at The Horse's Mouth (a blog that took apart Ruth Ann once before) made one phone call and found out from Brad Benson, special project manager for the Port of San Francisco that:

"The port initiated these requests. They came entirely from the city and county of San Francisco. [The requests] were generated at the staff level. The port initiated our request through the city and county of San Francisco. Our requests were funneled through the mayor's office on up to Speaker Pelosi's office...If anyone is claiming that Pelosi initiated these requests in some way, that's completely false."

That about does it. Doesn't it?

We'll see. Never underestimate the local rightwing pundits on their ability to disregard reality.

Jack Kelly - April 29, 2007

Is there someone at the P-G who can get Jack Kelly back on his meds? If today's column is any indication, his grasp of reality is tenuous at best.

I'm almost tempted to go paragraph by paragraph to point out the spin, but I'll just touch on a few highpoints of his latest. Paragraph 3:

It's remarkable that Democrats, as a matter of policy, are siding with America's enemies in time of war. It didn't work so well for them when they did that during the Civil War. And it is questionable political strategy to make a swift retreat from Iraq the centerpiece of their legislative agenda. But more remarkable is how clumsily Democrats are executing the strategy they've chosen.

His first sentence tells you everything you need to know about J-Kel's political point of view. With polls showing a majority of Americans siding with the Democrats in Congress on Iraq Jack Kelly still insists on the tired old rhetoric of "Democrats siding with America's enemies in time of war."

Question for Jack: doesn't that make a majority of Americans "siding with the enemy" too? How do you intend to deal with all those traitors, Jack?

But his next sentence is surely perplexing. Just who were "America's enemies" during the Civil War? That would be The Confederacy, I guess. So here's the message straight from Jack Kelly to every person who's with a Confederate flag draped some where on his or her property: You're bad Americans. You're supporting one of America's enemies - albeit a really old one.

He then quotes a blogger:

"If I were George Bush right about now, I'd wrap my arms around Harry Reid and give him a great big kiss on the cheek," said Web logger Rick Moran. "And I might even consider sending Speaker Pelosi a dozen roses."

If you're curious, this is the blog post from which Kelly scored that quotation. I am assuming Moran's being ironic when he calls the blog :The Right Wing Nut House." Anyway, here's the entire paragraph:

If I were George Bush right about now, I’d wrap my arms around Harry Reid and give him a great big kiss on the cheek. And I might even consider sending Speaker Pelosi a dozen roses, thanking her for playing her part to perfection in this Democratic Party defeatist extravaganza. For in truth, the Democrats are handing the President the one thing he desperately needed in order to maintain the surge, veto the Iraq supplemental with its timetables and withdrawal stipulations, and unite the Republicans as they haven’t been since the election last November; a political club with which to beat his opponents and re-energize support for the war among his base.

So it's going to, uh, help Bush when Congress does what the American people wants it to do? Even though it's not wat Bush wants? On Bizarro world, maybe.

The next paragraph:

Ms. Pelosi made a trip to Damascus early this month to meet with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. That trip was panned by the normally Democrat-friendly Washington Post, which said: "Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish." Ms. Pelosi also expressed a desire to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, until bad press forced a hasty retreat.

Let's start at the end and move backward. The first phrase of the last sentence:

Ms. Pelosi also expressed a desire to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...

Is, simply put, a lie. There's no other way to say it. Jack Kelly had to know that Pelosi never expressed any desire to meet with the Iranian President. To say otherwise is a lie.

Here's what happened. During the press conference after the trip to Syria a reporter asked Congressman Tom Lantos if they'd be interested in extending the diplomacy to Iran and here's how the San Francisco Chronicle reported it:

"Speaking just for myself, I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning, because however objectionable, unfair and inaccurate many of (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's) statements are, it is important that we have a dialogue with him,'' Lantos said. "Speaking for myself, I'm ready to go -- and knowing the speaker, I think that she might be.''

After pointing out how disgusted she was at some of the things Ahmadinejad has said, Pelosi said:

"But a person of Mr. Lantos' stature and personal experience is saying that -- even as a Holocaust survivor and even recognizing the outrageous statements of the president of Iran -- it's important to have dialogue. I think that speaks volumes.''

There's no mention - ever - of any desire to meet with Ahmadinejad. The closest she gets is saying "it's important to have dialogue." But even then, in the context of the paragraph, it's pretty easy to see that she's complimenting Lantos for saying "it's important to have dialogue."

Indeed on April 11, Pelosi's office declared pretty straightforward that she had no intention of travelling to Iran.

Where, Jack, is the desire to meet with Ahmadinejad? It's not there - never had been. And you're a liar for saying it was.

Now onto the first part of that paragraph. It references this editorial from the Washington Post. Too bad (and too bad for Jack's argument) it gets the basic premise wrong. As pointed out here, a newspaper in Israel reported before the trip about the message Pelosi was given. From Ha'aretz:

Following his visit to the forces in the field, a decision was made to publicly address the concerns of a possible deterioration with the Syrians, and to send a message that Israel has no intention of attacking Syria, nor is there any coordinated plan with the U.S. for a joint attack against Iran.

The speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is scheduled to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus today, and will deliver a message of calm from Israel.

Media Matters has the rest of the story. The point being that the Washington Post (and whether it's usually friendly to the DemocratIC Party is another question entirely) is the one who misrepresented the message given to Speaker Pelosi.

Onto the Harry Ried part of Kelly's column. He dutifully quotes David Broder about how Senator Reid is an embarrassment to the Democrats. It's the "the war is lost" talking point now being beaten to death by the Republicans. Just how offensive was that statement to the American people? Let's go back to the same poll above. In it, we find this clear-cut statement:

55 percent believe that victory in Iraq isn't possible.

See that? A majority agree with Reid that the war is lost. And that's embarrassing...how? Broder doesn't say. Neither does Kelly.

I found a curious paragraph in Broder's column. It's right before a paragraph that Kelly quotes. Broder writes:

Given the way the Constitution divides warmaking power between the president, as commander in chief, and Congress, as sole source of funds to support the armed services, it is essential that at some point Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be able to negotiate with the White House to determine the course America will follow until a new president takes office.

Whah? You mean that the Congress actually has a say in how the war is to be run? Broder said it, Jack, so it must be true.

Another Sunday, another column of spin and misrepresentation (and an outright lie) from the former National Security Columnist of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

More Poll News

There's a new poll out from the Washington Post.

First the bad news for dubya - his approval numbers are still horrendous.

When asked the question:

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president? Do you approve/disapprove strongly or somewhat?

Only 35% of those poll said they approved. 62% disapproved.

When asked the question:

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?

Only 29% of those polled said they approved. 70% disapproved.

And now the worse news for dubya - the public seems to like Speaker Pelosi.

When asked the question:

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Nancy Pelosi is handling her job as
Speaker of the House?

53% said said they approved. 35% disapproved.

This is AFTER the Pelosi-plane smear (which our good friend Ruth Ann Dailey did her darndest to promote and protect) and AFTER the Pelosi-Syria smear (which the Mike Pintek's been trying to promote).

Poll numbers are a snap-shot. They change all the time. But at this point and according to this poll, the American People APPROVED of Speaker Pelosi and DISAPPROVE of President Bush.

Chew on that for a bit.

Another Pelosi Myth

Recently, I caught a few minutes of Fox "News" watcher Mike Pintek guest-hosting on John McIntire's old show over at PCNC.

For what it's worth McIntire's back on the radio these days at 93.7, The Zone. He and Wolverine-fan Gab Bonesso can be heard daily doing bits like "Johnny Mac, Lesbo-flipper" and "Gab Bonesso, bad phone sex operator." Give it a listen if you like. Some are appalled, some are entertained. Some are at work and can't listen to it anyway.

Anyway back to the political bloggery.

If there's any more evidence that Pintek's been drinking the conservative cool-aid, this is it. He's been parroting the RNC talking point that Speaker Pelosi blundered on that recent trip to the Middle East. If you look closely, you can actually see the panic-based spittle when Pintek's forced to pinch out those two words: "Speaker Pelosi."

The "blunder" was something about her claiming to be bringing a message from Israel, and the Israeli Prime Minister claiming otherwise.

Josh Marshall has the story. Unlike the political construction the wingnuts inhabit, reality is far far more complicated. Marshall's piece is based in part on this article from Haaretz.com. In it, you'll find these two paragraphs:

Following his visit to the forces in the field, a decision was made to publicly address the concerns of a possible deterioration with the Syrians, and to send a message that Israel has no intention of attacking Syria, nor is there any coordinated plan with the U.S. for a joint attack against Iran.

The speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is scheduled to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus today, and will deliver a message of calm from Israel.

So much for Pintek's RNC talking points.

As I wrote, the real story is a lot more complicated than Pintek or the Washington Post editorial thinks.

Ruth Ann Responds

Here's Ruth Ann Dailey's defense of her offensive Pelosi Smear column.

Turns out her defense isn't very strong either. She sets out via a timeline to support a position that only she (and a few other wingnuts to the right Tony Snow) still seems to think is true. We know Ruth Ann can do better than this. We've seen Ruth Ann do better than this. But I guess she doesn't want to admit her mistakes and this column is just a complicated dance to make her charges seem less out there than they actually are.

Here's how she starts the column. She probably doesn't get the irony at the end of the first paragraph (but then again, she probably wouldn't):

It's rarely worthwhile to revisit a recent topic, but the writing of, and response to, last Monday's column is too interesting to pass up. It gives unusual insight into a modern irony: Despite the Internet's vast resources, people can find as much news, or as little, as suits their agenda.

Many people first noticed the flap over Rep. Nancy Pelosi's military airplane around Feb. 7 or 8, when the nation's bigger media began covering it. But good and undisputed reporting had been under way for a full week.

She uses the word "undisputed" here. Remember that.

She begins her defense of her smear where it began, with this article in the Washington Times. Hardly a credible source nowadays. That quote by Abraham Lincoln had been debunked last August, and yet the paper that Ruth Ann Dailey is relying on for its journalistic credibility took more than two days to issue a correction after it was reminded that Lincoln never said it.

Good choice, Ruth Ann.

Anway, this is what Ruth Ann Daily wrote:

The Washington Times, widely considered a conservative newspaper, was the first to break the story on Feb. 1, when both Pentagon and Bush administration sources revealed details of stalled negotiations with the speaker of the House.

"The sources ... said she is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives. ... The speaker's legal counsel is spearheading the talks." [emphasis in original]

Watch carefully those ellipses. She's combined two different sentences (from two different paragraphs) into one. Here's the source of the first:

The sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time."

Why omit the phrase between those commas? I'm not sure. This is the second paragraph of the WashTimes article, by the way. Four paragraphs later (the article's sixth) there's the other half of Ruth Ann's sentence:

Sources said Mrs. Pelosi's request goes beyond what Mr. Hastert received. The speaker's legal counsel is spearheading the talks.

Looks like she's lumping all the "sources" into one pile and then attributing any of the information from one to any of them. But the first quote is obviously from a political source and the second (owing to it's placement in the article) is obviously a defense source. Why? Just take a look at this. It's the previous two paragraphs in the Washtimes article:

Mrs. Pelosi's request is not new for a speaker, who is second-in-line in presidential succession. A defense source said the speaker's regular access to a military plane began after the September 11, 2001, attacks. Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, who was speaker at the time, started using U.S. Air Force planes for domestic travel to and from his district for security reasons. A former Hastert aide said the congressman did not use military planes for political trips or regularly transport his family.

The defense source said Mr. Hastert requested a plane with good communications so he could conduct legislative business. The military flights increased to the point the speaker used a military plane for many, if not all, flights to his Illinois district, the former aide said.

It's a small point, but take a look at the detail that isn't there. The sources are all unnamed and are from the administration and Congress (can we guess which party?) and much later the Pentagon. Lumping them all together makes them all seem to fit together.

Eventually in her time line of sources she gets to some actual names:

Also on Thursday, House Sergeant-at-Arms Bill Livingood stated that the initial request for Ms. Pelosi's airplane had come from him, as well as an insistence on nonstop flights.

An Associated Press article on Mr. Livingood's role and on the White House's defense of Ms. Pelosi adopted the tone of breezy dismissal apparent in Tony Snow's word, "silly." Most irate readers I heard from e-mailed a copy of this article, often via political blogs, as if AP's brief, tardy coverage was definitive.

You may not think the AP coverage is, but Livingood's statement certainly is definitive, Ruth Ann. Far more definitive than the "unnamed sources" of the Washington Times' coverage. For those who may have missed it, here's Livingood's statement (in its entirety):

As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.

In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.

Also, I'd think that this does dispute the Washington Times' story, doesn't it? Something Ruth Ann failed to point out. Here's more of what Tony Snow said:

Well, I'll reiterate our position. The question -- the RNC has put out a statement on Speaker Pelosi and travel arrangements, and I'll just repeat our position, which is, as Speaker of the House, she is entitled to military transport, and that the arrangements, the proper arrangements are being made between the Sergeant of Arms office in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Department of Defense. We think it's appropriate, and so, again, I think this is much ado about not a whole lot. It is important for the Speaker to have this kind of protection and travel. It was certainly appropriate for Speaker Hastert. So we trust that all sides will get this worked out.

So when she says that the stuff that's in the Washington Times is "undisputed" she's, well, wrong, isn't she? Tony Snow himself said that the arrangements were being made by the Sergeant-at-Arms and the DOD, not Pelosi's office, not Murtha's. Looks like THE WHITE HOUSE is disputing the story that Ruth Ann Dailey is on the record saying is "undisputed."

Nice going, Ruth Ann.

And yet she valiantly continues:

Close reading of all the news available, however, reveals that none of the reports cancels others out. For instance, Mr. Livingood's initiation of the request doesn't mean that Ms. Pelosi, her staff and Mr. Murtha didn't also make requests -- or, in Mr. Murtha's case, threats. They did. This reporting has not been disproven; indeed, Ms. Pelosi's first statements on the conflict confirm her involvement, and Mr. Murtha has boasted of his role.

It's also not disproven that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe. No proof of it either. Too bad she doesn't include any quotations to support what she's asserting. Here's one:

Pelosi said she would be happy to fly on commercial airliners but said the House sergeant-at-arms office urged her to continue Hastert's practice of using Air Force transport. She said she was informed on her first trip home that her plane would not make it across the country.

"I said well, that's fine, I'm going commercial," she told Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren. "I'm not asking to go on that plane. If you need to take me there for security purposes, you're going to have to get a plane that goes across the country, because I'm going home to my family."

Her nest part is pretty egregious.

But people who would savage George Bush for asserting the sky is blue fell all over themselves to embrace the White House's support of Ms. Pelosi, forgetting that it might simply be savvy political posturing: The White House got to speak softly while some House Republicans wielded a medium-size stick, just as Washington headed into congressional debate on the Iraq surge.

My god, is she saying the White House is lying? Well she uses the phrase "savvy political posturing" but "lying" covers it. She wants us to think that Tony Snow played "good cop" to the Congressional Republicans "bad cop" and that 1) the "bad cops" are speaking the truth and 2) the "good cop" (i.e the White House) knows that it's manipulating the truth.

This is how far Ruth Ann Dailey, faithful Republican, had to go to support her smear: The White House is lying about it.

I'll leave it at that.