Speaker Pelosi Responds To Kevin McCarthy

[berni_mccoy]

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/10319

October 3, 2019

The Honorable Kevin McCarthy

Republican Leader

H-204, The Capitol

Washington, D.C. 20515



Dear Leader McCarthy,

As Members of Congress, we take a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The existing rules of the House provide House Committees with full authority to conduct investigations for all matters under their jurisdiction, including impeachment investigations. There is no requirement under the Constitution, under House Rules, or House precedent that the whole House vote before proceeding with an impeachment inquiry.

As you know, our Founders were specifically intent on ensuring that foreign entities did not undermine the integrity of our elections. I received your letter this morning shortly after the world witnessed President Trump on national television asking yet another foreign power to interfere in the upcoming 2020 elections. We hope you and other Republicans share our commitment to following the facts, upholding the Constitution, protecting our national security, and defending the integrity of our elections at such a serious moment in our nation’s history.



best regards,

NANCY PELOSI

Speaker of the House

Emphasis added is mine.

[spanone]

1. K&R...👍🏼

Sadly, Madame Speaker, republicans do not share our commitment to following the facts, upholding the Constitution, protecting our national security, and defending the

integrity of our elections at such a serious moment in our nation’s history.

[NurseJackie]

32. Experience we can trust! NANCY PELOSI ROCKS!!! She knows what she's doing!

[iluvtennis]

37. +++ agree.

[RayStar]

38. Speaker Pelosi

Yes she does.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

49. Ugh

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Good letter. Too bad SHE didn't add the emphasis! n/t

[StarfishSaver]

21. She didn't need to ...

"Nice letter, but she didn't boldface some of the words she wrote ..."

[berni_mccoy]

23. Yup

I felt the need to do it myself. Like taking notes in class. She is a master.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

3. Burn!

[SallyHemmings]

4. It should have been addressed

To: Hey Dumbass!!!!

[spanone]

6. Or a sarcasm emoji they can insert after 'Honorable'

[alwaysinasnit]

5. Someone just got spanked!

[samnsara]

7. shes a jewel!!

[Champion Jack]

8. That's gonna leave a mark

[gratuitous]

9. A far more gracious response than the Minority Leader deserves

If McCarthy continues his churlish ways, though (and he will), the Speaker can say she has given him no cause to be a jerk.

[Sherman A1]

11. agreed, my response would have been

NO

[berni_mccoy]

16. That's Pelosi's style though.

[calimary]

51. She's a mom and a grandmother.

She’s had LOTS of experience dealing with unruly children.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

10. Ouch!

[cwydro]

12. Boom!

Recommended.

[madamesilverspurs]

13. I'd have quoted his president:

"Are you talking to me?"


.

[Karadeniz]

14. Wasn't it McCarthy who said among a group of republicans that he knew of two people who were

In Putin's pocket, Rohrbacher and Trump...and everyone laughed and Paul Ryan warned them to not repeat it...this during the campaign. We need to resurrect that gem.

[bluecollar2]

65. +100...

It needs to make the rounds whilst they are in recess...

[mcar]

15. Slapped him down good

[ffr]

17. I'm with Nancy. You cannot go wrong upholding your oath to defend the U.S. Constitution

[mfcorey1]

18. Bam! Are there any questions?

[George II]

19. As her daughter said:

"She'll cut your head off, and you won't even know you're bleeding"

That's what she just did to McCarthy, except it wasn't his head!

[redstatebluegirl]

58. Need to have one to have it cut off.

[peggysue2]

20. Whoosh!

Reminding McCarthy of what a moron he truly is.

[BigmanPigman]

22. Will he even read her response THOUGH?!?

He doesn't seem to be too keen on reading transcripts, does that apply to letters too?

[StarfishSaver]

24. I love that she didn't even bother to answer his spate of stupid questions.

[Lucky Luciano]

25. Very professional response, but my favorite response to a stupid letter is definitely:

First, the stupid letter and then the response below.

[llmart]

35. LOL!

Born and raised in the Cleveland area and I attended many a game in that stadium. Thanks for the memories. Funny response also.

P.S. Little historic tidbit - Art Modell was a real jerk. He was having an affair with my next door neighbor.

[Lucky Luciano]

47. Glad you were amused!

[Wounded Bear]

26. Madame Clapback strikes again...

[Roland99]

27. There's a HUUUGE problem with that letter. disgusting

"Honorable" Kevin McCarthy?????

[Lucky Luciano]

45. Sarcasm can be amusing at times!

[juxtaposed]

28. put that in your pipe and smoke it

[C_U_L8R]

29. Spank.

That will leave a welt.

[NoMoreRepugs]

30. Incredibly polite ASS Whoopin' - Madame Speaker ROCKS.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

31. Dear Kev, You should know better by now. If not, read up.

[bucolic_frolic]

33. McCarthy

is the most sanctimonious blow dry since Newtie and just as much an airhead

[Stinky The Clown]

34. SMACK!!!!

[TNNurse]

36. I thought she showed great restraint in not including "Dumbass" somewhere in this letter.

[stopdiggin]

50. that was probably

the "keeping her powder dry" part ...

[EveHammond13]

39. HANG IT ON YOUR WALL KEVIN AND READ IT EVERY DAY. #owned

[patphil]

40. McCarthy's timing couldn't have been better.

Way to go Kev!

[myohmy2]

41. sounds...

...perfect to me...

...

[Lib 4 Life]

42. that fell on deaf ears for sure.

[mwooldri]

43. Am I wrong in reading this as "Fuck you Mr. McCarthy...

.. and the horse you rode in on?".

That's how I read it ....

[Danascot]

53. The written equivalent of the fuck you clap.

[lordsummerisle]

44. Great stuff, k&r n/t

[KPN]

46. The R's hold no moral ground whatsoever. They

are mincemeat. Andd Pelosi made that abundantly clear with that superb letter.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

48. Said this this morning - why don't we vote?

We have the votes.

Games. Let's just stand up for what's right! And forget all the gamesmanship. IMHO.

[pnwmom]

52. Because there are some Reps in swing or red districts who could be hurt by a public vote

for impeachment.

Do we want a smaller or no majority in Congress?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

54. But they have already made public statements in

support of moving forward. An actual vote (to move forward) would be worse?

[pnwmom]

61. Not all of them. n/t

[Laura PourMeADrink]

62. Like 5? Btw,. May not work but gop

Now trying to use (no vote to proceed) as an excuse for not providing docs

[hughee99]

55. If I understand correctly, the house has special powers

During an impeachment inquiry that they don’t normally have, and all that is required for an impeachment inquiry is the Speaker’s declaration that it is happening?

I feel like this position will bite us in the ass not too far down the line.

[lagomorph777]

56. Nope - have to get the facts exposed; as you can see, public opinion is following Nancy.

Her declaration of the hearings instantly swung opinion 20 points toward impeachment.

[hughee99]

59. Are you saying it doesn't matter what happens in the future, because it seems

Like they could hold a vote and have plenty of support for an impeachment inquiry.

[lagomorph777]

60. ?? I don't understand that question. It's all about what to do to make the future better.

Yes, many tricky questions. But right now, we need the public to learn what Trumputin have been up to. There is no reason to slow things down for a vote; the public at large is not interested in arcane procedural questions. And, as Speaker Pelosi says, there is no Constitutional, legal, procedural, or even traditional requirement for a vote. She has the power to declare an investigation, and she has done so. Now Congress has more clout with judicial proceedings (e.g. subpoena enforcement), and the public will be able to learn more about Trumputin's crimes. That will swing opinion in our direction ahead of the actual impeachment vote.

[hughee99]

63. I am suggesting that doing it this way could have serious negative consequences

In the future. You seem to be saying that we should deal with the important issues now, and worry about the consequences later. Is that accurate?

[lagomorph777]

64. No, I'm saying the consequences are permanent if we don't get the public on board.

Holding a vote and slowing down (i.e. giving in to Trump's demands) will lose public support and momentum.

[hughee99]

67. If you don't have the vote, then impeachment proceedings

Begin whenever a speaker says they do. What do you suppose someone like Paul Ryan would do with that sort of power? Imagine if Newt Gingrich had it?

[lagomorph777]

68. Only RWers are pushing your "concern" for creating a brand-new procedural vote.

Voters are not obsessing on procedural minutiae. That concept of requiring a new, extra vote was Trumped-up by the Russiapublicans to try to slow down the process long enough to kill it.

[hughee99]

69. If we have the votes, and everyone seems to be saying we do,

The whole thing will take an hour or two and then we don’t set a precedent of “impeachment by speakers decree”, which will make the next republican speaker salivate

[lagomorph777]

70. Sets a bad precedent to start obediently bowing to the wishes of the criminals.

Good luck with that.

[hughee99]

71. The wishes of criminals seems to be that we follow the same process

That was followed with Nixon, and that process worked out as well as we could hope for here.

[redstatebluegirl]

57. K&R

[11 Bravo]

66. That woman sure knows how to twist the knife!