Jan 6 Committee: Inside the mind of a traitor (10/13, 1PM EST)

I don't think the general idea of creating chaos so that martial law could be declared is all that complicated.

 

We are talking Trump here

 

Could not disagree more. Read Molly Ball's biography. There may have been some minor self dealing but her husband's wealth predated her political career. In fact, it kind of created her political career. She was a stay-at-home mom, albeit the daughter of a big city mayor though she was far away from (Baltimore), but discovered she was a prodigious fundraiser because they already ran in those circles. Only later did she decide to run for office herself. But the family wealth did not come from public service. Her political career came from her husband's wealth.

But that's not the source of my admiration, just addressing the criticism. She has been a master legislator. She's horrible in front of the camera, but a master of the legislative process and an incredible hard worker and shares my values. Again, I would encourage you to read that biography.

Of course, the proximate reason I posted that was her leadership on January 6th, far more than any other national leader, as shown in the most recent hearing. She was truly the most active leader doing everything right. And no I hesitate ever criticize Steve Scalise given that he almost died, the fact that he would so blatantly lie, try to criticize her for not calling out the national guard, which really wasn't her job, when he was standing right next to her when she was calling everyone trying to get protection, is really low

 

Here's the book.

 

Was going to the say the same. The notion that Nancy Pelosi enriched herself through her office is a myth that just will not away. I guess it's an example of people believing what they wish to believe regardless of the facts. Paul Pelosi is a successful real estate investor and venture capitalist. The Pelosis were wealthy before Nancy ever ran for public office.

 

A lot of people see her as a symbol of the corporate corrupt part of politics. And I suppose she is. She raises a lot of money with the big funders. And of course I wish money were not necessarily in politics. But it's not like the Democrats can unilaterally disarm. The Supreme Court has made sure that politics are overflowing with money and that corruption can't be addressed.

One thing the book makes clear is that notwithstanding the fact that she is viewed as part of the corporate wing of the party, she is very progressive. But mostly she is a master legislator. She doesn't want to hear your pitch, she wants to hear how many votes you control. If you have enough support in the House that she needs your votes, she will work with you. But approach her with the number of votes you have, not with an ideological appeal, or at least not exclusively an ideological appeal. She's all about counting votes. And getting the most progressive result that you can get passed.