Decades of irrational hate doesn’t go away overnight.
The whataboutism on this board is sickening. 
Seriously, rightwing media? This is weak, even for you.
I’m more upset with the Republican Party who are a fascist movement that tried to overthrow our democracy and with the so called ‘moderates’ who would have freaked the fuck out if Pelosi actually said the subtext out loud. Anytime we try to point out that things are as bad as they really are, they get the vapors and threaten to side with the fascists.
At some point, you have to stop tap dancing around nascent fascists and just openly call them out for what they are. You’d think that losing the speakership and having her husband brutally attacked would encourage Pelosi to say the actual words, but she is so inculcated in a culture of performance that it doesn’t even occur to her to do anything but coy posturing.
Stranger
To be captain obvious here, there is no such point. Calling self-described conservatives fascist is always a choice.
I realize that some successful GOP candidates have a pretty strong history of namecalling. So if you, like me, buy that DJT is in multiple ways a smart politician, you might be forgiven for wondering whether Democrats should also try it.
This next link isn’t a final answer, but there is some real polling evidence behind it:
Crooked Hillary and Sleepy Joe: name-calling’s backfire effect on candidate evaluations
Pelosi was wise not to call DJT a fascist.
I wouldn’t call someone who kills off thousands of their supporters with anti-vax rhetoric smart.
She’s an idiot. And so is Trump.
It was a damned bad fumble for a member of Congress. Perhaps she iis leaving because she realizes that she is losing it.
I hate to agree with Stranger, but I do.
I give it a big fat “meh”. Have you seen the recent footage of Boebert obsessing over public urination and making a 100% certified fool of herself in a House hearing? Now that is a damned bad fumble for a member of congress. I know this is “whataboutism”, but one was in a hearing, one was not.
So she does a lot of Dumb Things, and Pelosi did one Dumb Thing. It is still a Dumb Thing.
I think it was just a verbal fumble. It would have been better for her to use the word “show” though.
“He will have the chance to show his innocence.”
But then that could be misinterpreted by the Democratic base as Pelosi believing Trump actually is in fact innocent.
“Defend himself in a court of law”.
I keep seeing people repeat it was a “verbal fumble” or a “verbal slip”. To be clear, this was a written statement (twitter) not some off the cuff remark.
She definitely should have phrased this better, but I still consider it a big fat “meh” in the grand scheme of things.
There are three groups of people:
- People who hate her are going to see it as a giant mistake.
- Those who don’t hate her but are pedantic are going to see it as an error that she should not have made.
- Those who aren’t pedantic are going to wonder why those who are making a big deal about it are being so pedantic.
The first group is unreachable and so don’t matter, and I suspect that the third group outnumbers the second group. Also for this third group, saying defendents have the ability “prove your innocence” is a more powerful phrase than some watered down phrase about “arguing their innocence”. So even it its not technically correct, it might be better. Those arguing against it probably also would prefer if Kirk had said “To go boldly where no person had gone before”
The point is that if Trump is as obviously innocent as he claims to be then he will be just fine, probably even better than fine since he will be fully exonerated on the full public stage. So he should just sit back relax and let the wheel of justice roll right over him.
Well said, @Buck_Godot. The vitriol directed against Pelosi is, at best, the most ridiculous kind of nitpicking.
But wait, there’s her third sentence, too: “Hopefully, the former President will peacefully respect the system, which grants him that right.” What does “peacefully respect the system” mean? Is there a way to violently respect the system? Worse still, what’s this stuff about how the justice system “grants him that right”? Doesn’t she know that certain rights are inherent, and that the Constitution doesn’t “grant” them, but guarantees them; in the case of the justice system, specifically through Article III of the Constitution and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments?
Jeebus, the woman is simply saying that no one is above the law, that Trump has been charged in accordance with established facts under the law, that he has the opportunity to defend himself, and that he should shut the fuck up, stop trying to incite riots like he did on Jan 6, and let justice run its course.
I visited foxnews-dot-com soon after the indictment to see how they were handling it. The top story was not “TRUMP INDICTED” but Nancy Pelosi’s statement about it 
That seems to be par for the course for fox news whenever there’s a story that sheds negative light on Repubs- they can’t ignore it completely, so they focus on a Democratic reaction to the news that they can criticize in some way. If trump shot somebody on 5th Avenue, the top story would be something like “CONTROVERSY OVER PELOSI’S REFERENCE TO ‘TRUMP KILLING SPREE’ WHEN IN FACT IT WAS ONLY ONE VICTIM”.
What’s wrong with Pelosi’s statement? It’s 100% true and accurate. It’s not 100% complete, but then, to be 100% complete, it would need to cover all of the past 13.8 billion years of history.
Fucking Twitter. Just say nothing. Was anyone wondering what her thoughts were about the indictment?
But, but, WE HAVE TO BE BETTER THAN THEM!!! ALL THE TIME, ON EVERYTHING!