Nancy Pelosi’s State of the Union stunt may have broken the law, Rep. Matt Gaetz says By Kenneth Garger February 6, 2020 | 12:35am Rep. Matt Gaetz (left) and Nancy Pelosi tearing President Donald Trump's State of the Union speech (right). AP Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz filed an ethics complaint against Nancy Pelosi that said the House Speaker possibly violated numerous House rules — and maybe even broke the law — by tearing up a copy of President Trump’s State of the Union speech. The Florida legislator sent a letter to the House Committee on Ethics requesting they open an investigation and shared the missive on Twitter. Gaetz wrote that “Speaker Pelosi’s gesture was deeply offensive and appears to violate clauses 1 and 2 of House Rule XXIII,” which dictate the House’s official code of conduct. “Her behaviour does not ‘reflect creditably on the House,’ nor does it follow “the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House.” Gaetz, in his letter, said Pelosi’s “unseemly behaviour certainly warrants censure.” The lawmaker asked that after conducting the ethics probe, the committee make referrals to the Department of Justice “for further investigation and prosecution.” Pelosi, Gaetz alleges in the letter, “appears to be in violation” of a law that prohibits willfully destroying paper or documents “filed or deposited” in public office. “There is no question that Speaker Pelosi ‘mutilated, obliterated, or destroyed’ the copy of the President’s address provided to her at the beginning of the evening,” Gaetz wrote, quoting language from the law. After Tuesday night’s State of the Union, Pelosi told reporters that she shredded the papers because it was “the courteous thing to do,” a point Gaetz mentions in his letter as evidence to her alleged wrongdoing.
Here's something to think about: A majority of Senators expressed their beliefs that Trump did something wrong in his dealing with Ukraine. A few of them, all Republicans, only disagreed with the magnitude of the wrong doing.
The economy has been on the rise ever since 2010 and Obama.[/QUOTE] Well, gee, I'm sure glad Trump didn't stomp on it, then.
People need to start giving a shit. That's the only way to get this orange POS out. If the general public only half pays attention to the news without realizing the implications, we are totally fucked.
They already screwed up by touting and nominating Hillary 4 years ago and now with the exception of Bloomberg, none of the other hopefuls give me a warm and fuzzy feeling of being able to stop Trump in November.
Republicans are such sensitive snowflakes. Freaking out over paper being ripped.. like little snotty babies.
TOO BAD THE TRUMPY BEARS ARE ALL WATCHING WRASSLIN', FUCKING THEIR SIBLINGS AND RUNNING INTO BRICK WALLS
agreed..I really thought Carvels comments were right on mark about the party needs to get serious about what they want to be, either an Ideological Cult that leans way to left or a party for majority power. He mentioned that if EW would quit holding onto Bernie's left rear end she'd be a much stronger candidate. Start talking about things people care about and get on with it. Im thinking Pete and Amy should go more center as they can get independents and libertarians to come their way if they over some compromise and a bridge to cross.
well, what trump proved is that anyone can win a presidential race. If a lying misongynistic bully that constantly lies can win, why not anyone else? Standards for a president have been lowered well below what anyone should expect.
So you think Bernie Sanders can win? Im not sure Cup, I get your point but there are many Americans that don't totally buy into demo socialism, especially in the States that Hillary should have won. Same voters mayt democrats/independents that voted against Hillary rather than Trump. I want the best candidate possible to earn those votes back and I don't see it happening with Bernie. I could be wrong though I'll admit that.
We had no history per say on trump as a president. Now we do. Now he can take credit for an economy, unemployment and stock market improving, but they were already in an upward trajectory under Obama so how much can trump really be given credit for that? Remember the saying, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Not sure many people want to be fooled again.
I have no idea. Are we going to have a clean election this time? What I would like to know is what's trump going to campaign with? His last cam[paign was built on fear and the USA being in such horrible shape (we know that was all lies). If he tries that same tactic he's discrediting himself this time. He only knows one tactic and that's to attack and lie.
