Image 01 Image 03

Pelosi Calls McCarthy a ‘Moron’ Because He Questioned Mask Mandates

Pelosi Calls McCarthy a ‘Moron’ Because He Questioned Mask Mandates

At least we don’t have mean tweets from Orange Man Bad.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy a moron after a reporter asked her about his questions about the new mask mandates.

McCarthy said:

Reporters swarmed Pelosi outside of a car.

The remark comes at the end. Pelosi clearly says, “He’s such a moron.”

Pelosi’s chief spokesperson said the office could not verify the audio. I guess no one listened to the audio.

Pelosi takes 34 seconds to deny she called McCarthy a moron. Her comment was simply “it is not wise” to deny the science or whatever.

Except she said, “He’s such a moron.”



Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Did someone not remind Pelosi to put her mask on before she …..criticized someone who objects to another round of mask mandate theater?

These midterm campaign ads are writing themselves. Once again, clueless and incompetent messaging from out elites who violate their own policy preferences in their haste to chastise people who disagree.

The d/progressive better enjoy it while it lasts. Their credibility is eroding before our eyes and they can’t resist helping out with more shovels.


Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: a controlled study

Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

Also, non-sterilizing vaccines forcing mutation. Factories complete with masked workers and viral blooms.

This is, incidentally, why they were pushing the droplet spread theory, which failed to materialize in any substantive way. And, why vaccinated spreaders, with suppressed symptoms, are a progressive risk to themselves and others.

Pelosi is still smirking after her 0106 debacle. Neither civil rights, one unarmed woman aborted, nor accountability. Extraordinary… progressive corruption (PC).

Nanzi is working on opening the Gulag is my bet.

Is it okay to call Nancy names now?Because She is a dried up old nag with a nasty disposition that comes from a corrupt family. Names are the new normal.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to r2468. | July 28, 2021 at 4:47 pm

    I bet that Nancy and my ex wife would get along well 🙂

    n.n in reply to r2468. | July 28, 2021 at 8:45 pm

    As a firm believer and subscriber to the Progressives’ Pro-Choice religion that denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to a properyy, she is quite literally the wicked witch of the west.

nordic_prince | July 28, 2021 at 4:13 pm

Nazi Pelosi wouldn’t know science if it snuck up behind her and bit her ugly old ass.

A rebuke of the Speaker should be read into the record from the House floor for her vile, ill-tempered lack of discretion and demeanor.

Did McCarthy break a municipal law by going inside a hair salon in SF to get her hair colored, when it was only legal for salons to provide services outdoors? And not all salon services could be performed legally even outdoors; which if I recall correctly is why Pelosi had to have it done illegally indoors to have the illegal service performed out of public view.

And did McCarthy also break Kali’s mask mandate while breaking the salon-service laws?

“Nancy Pelosi was filmed breaking San Francisco COVID-19 rules by getting her hair done indoors and without a mask”

Unfortunately not OT: in other law-breaking-by-people-who-consider-themselves-above-the-law news, the NSA has admitted it illegally surveilled Tucker Carlson and illegally unmasked him while illegally leaking to the media the contents of his private communications.

“Tucker Carlson’s ‘unmasking’ claim confirmed by NSA investigators: report”

mark311 hardest hit, other leftist trolls hardest hit.

“…Two sources told The Record Friday that, according to an internal NSA investigation, Carlson’s name was revealed after it was mentioned in “communications between two parties” that were under surveillance.

But the host of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” was neither a direct nor an incidental target of the agency, the sources said.”

Let me translate for leftist troll who will continue to turn a blind eye and be deliberately obtuse and pretend there’s some innocent explanation. The NSA can’t/won’t they routinely conduct illegal surveillance of the political opponents of Democrat regimes. The NSA’s non-denial denial (which only idiot leftist trolls pretend was a denial) said Carlson wasn’t an intelligence target. So he was a different kind of target; an illegal target. He wasn’t targeted for intelligence purposes, which is the only way the NSA can LEGALLY target a U.S. person.

So neither of the two other individuals who the NSA was surveilling was a legal intelligence target. Otherwise Carlson would have been surveilled “incidentally.” But he wasn’t an “incidental target.” Nor was he directly targeted.

Which means the NSA is conducting illegal political targeting. And not only of Carlson.

“The NSA review has been given to the House and Senate Intelligence committees, The Record’s sources said.”

The “NSA review” likely refers to an ICIG investigation.

    Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | July 28, 2021 at 5:15 pm

    The NSA’s non-denial denial (which only idiot leftist trolls pretend was a denial) said Carlson wasn’t an intelligence target. So he was a different kind of target; an illegal target. He wasn’t targeted for intelligence purposes, which is the only way the NSA can LEGALLY target a U.S. person.

    So neither of the two other individuals who the NSA was surveilling was a legal intelligence target. Otherwise Carlson would have been surveilled “incidentally.” But he wasn’t an “incidental target.” Nor was he directly targeted.

    This is just not true. Whether the NSA’s statement is true or false I don’t know, but I do know that you are misrepresenting it. According to the NSA, and I know of no reason to doubt it, one or both of the people in whose communication Carlson’s messages were included, was a legitimate target. Therefore the NSA was justified in collecting that communication, including Carlson’s messages. That’s not the scandal. But legally his name would have had to be masked, and the fact that his messages, complete with his name, was circulating within the government means that someone would have had to deliberately unmask it, which is illegal without a good reason, and nobody can come up with one. The second scandal is that someone leaked those messages, complete with his name.

      f2000 in reply to Milhouse. | July 28, 2021 at 5:29 pm

      The main problem is that “target/targeting” has a specific legal definition within Intelligence Oversight laws. It is definitely much more narrow a meaning than anyone not in that community thinks of when they hear it and the NSA is hiding behind that distinction.

      The same difference in meaning exists with “collecting” definitions.

        Arminius in reply to f2000. | July 28, 2021 at 9:06 pm

        I don’t know why this fact, that “target/targeting” have specific legal definitions is so hard to get across. Perhaps because reporters write about it so sloppily. For instance, the article I cited states that Carlson was “neither a direct nor an incidental target of the agency.” There’s no such thing as an “incidental target.” Someone can have their communications collected “incidental” to surveillance against a legitimate target. But that someone can’t be an “incidental target,” since that someone could have not been a target.

        Although I leave open the possibility that the press reports on these matters so sloppily because whoever is leaking this to the press knows and takes advantage of the fact that the press knows nothing about these matters.

        But frankly it’s the NSA apologists who are attempting to mislead the public that the NSA denied anything substantive. They denied that Carlson was an “intelligence target” of the agency. No one, including Carlson, ever accused the NSA of that. But the NSA in their carefully worded non-denial never denied they were targeting Carlson for purposes other than legitimate intelligence collection. Trying to wade through the language in this press report, and knowing there’s no such thing as an “incidental target,” I can only conclude at the moment that the reporter is trying to say that Carlson’s email was not collected “incidentally” to legitimate intelligence collection.

        In any case the NSA never addressed Carlson’s real accusations: 1) that they were reading Carlson’s private communications and 2) they or someone in the Biden administration illegally unmasked Carlson and 3) they leaked the contents of Carlson’s private communications to the press.

        The NSA itself has now confirmed all those accusations are true.

          CommoChief in reply to Arminius. | July 28, 2021 at 10:55 pm


          I believe the NSA was reported to have claimed that TC name popped up in a communication between two other people and his name was unmasked.

          I didn’t see anything about the NSA admitting they had read his email. They have been silent on that point as far as I am aware.

          IMO they did. How else did the whistleblower read it verbatim to TC? That leaves out the question of what agency the whistleblower works in. NSA? JoJ? DoD? Other?

          It also leaves out who the unmask request came from and their agency or perhaps the WH? It doesn’t address the leak to Axios or the leaker or what remedial steps, if any, to mitigate this in the future.

          Arminius in reply to Arminius. | July 28, 2021 at 11:42 pm


          Carlson was illegally unmasked. The only way any U.S. person can be unmasked is if they were masked in the first place. And they could only be masked if the person’s true identity was replaced in a report that was disseminated in a disclosure to other executive departments or agencies.

          So It’s not a guess on my part. The NSA would have had to read the entire chain of electronic communications to know to replace Tucker Carlson’s name with a generic term like “U.S. person no. 1” (I have no way of knowing if that was the precise generic term the NSA was using to mask Carlson’s identity, but it would have been something very much like it so I will use it to make my point).

          Again, the only way Carlson’s name could have been masked is if 1) the NSA was reading his communications 2) retaining the information and 3) disseminating the information.

          Then someone who had an interest in Tucker Carlson would have (if anyone in this atrocity was following the law) made an official request to unmask “U.S. person no. 1.”

          Carlson’s personal communications would have had to have been included in a (again, if anyone in this atrocity was following the law) FISA dissemination. There is no other possible explanation. NSA collected Carlson’s electronic communications. They read those electronic communications. They told others about the contents of those electronic communications. Someone then requested to know the actual identity of “U.S. person no. 1” and the NSA released that information.

          And then someone leaked the contents of that (again, if anyone was following the law and told the FISC and the FISC signed off on this activity) FISA communication to the press.

          This is the only way this could happen, and it is all highly illegal.

          As I recall the NSA’s carefully worded non-denial, they said Tucker Carlson was never an “intelligence target.” I believe that; that doesn’t mean he wasn’t targeted for other purposes. The NSA’s non-denial then went on to say they never had plans to release the information with the intent of forcing Carlson off the air.

          But they obviously disseminated the information; Carlson’s identity would have had to have been masked in that FISA dissemination. The ONLY way TC’s identity could have been unmasked is his true identity was originally masked. So maybe no one at NSA leaked TC’s identity and private electronic communications to the press. With the intent of driving TC off the air.

          They simply illegally shared the contents of TC’s private communications and then revealed his identity to someone who did intend to leak that information to the press. With the intent of driving Carlson off the air.

          So what if they didn’t admit to reading his electronic communications? The only way this could have happened if they were reading them. And if no one at NSA then illegally leaked that information to the press, they illegally disseminated that information with third parties who intended to do exactly that. With malice toward Carlson.

          What the NSA did was wildly illegal. But, again, I am willing to concede I don’t know if the NSA was the only entity involved in this crime. They were just central to carrying this plan off.

          CommoChief in reply to Arminius. | July 29, 2021 at 12:50 pm

          We don’t know that TC was ‘illegally’ unmasked. He was unmasked that’s for damn sure.

          If the IC followed their internal BS process to facilitate the unmasking request of an official authorized to request the unmasking then that’s not unlawful.

          It’s stupidly partisan IMO, but if the paperwork was filled out and established procedures followed then it wasn’t necessarily unlawful.

          I think you and are arguing about the number of angels on the pin not the presence of angels on the pin.

          More info will eventually come to light about this episode. Hopefully the entire architecture of the surveillance state can be repealed once folks understand how powerful, invasive and subject to abuse the system is.

          Arminius in reply to Arminius. | July 29, 2021 at 4:59 pm


          As you know, access = clearance + need to know. Simply because someone was in a position to request the actual identity of an individual who is masked in FISA disseminations does not mean they have a legally sufficient need to know. “Because I’m curious about who this journalist is” doesn’t cut it. If they can’t express a legally sufficient need to know, then they can not legally have access to this information.

          But as you said, the process is entirely BS. An official can simply lie to gain access, especially if officials at the NSA are just dying to make an individual’s identity public, and they’ll approve any request no matter how flimsy the pretext.

          I can think of no better example of this than that of ex-FBI (for now) Kevin Clinesmith.

          “U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia James Boasberg on Friday during Clinesmith’s sentencing hearing said Clinesmith had suffered by losing his job and standing in the eye of a media hurricane.

          Boasberg gave him 12 months probation, 400 hours of community service, and no fine.

          Government prosecutors had been asking for Clinesmith to spend several months in jail, but Clinesmith’s defense had been advocating for probation only.

          “[He] lost his job, and his government service is what has given his life much of its meaning,” Boasberg said Friday. “He was also earning $150,000 a year and who knows where the earnings go now. He may be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law, you may never be able to work in the national security field again. These are substantial penalties.”

          Boasberg added: “What is more, he went from being an obscure career government lawyer to standing in the eye of a media hurricane. He has been threatened, vilified and abused on a nationwide scale.”

          …The inspector general had accused Clinesmith, though not by name, of altering an email about former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page to say that he was “not a source” for another government agency.

          …The Justice Department’s charging document stated that Clinesmith “did willfully and knowingly make and use a false writing and document, knowing the same to contain a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and entry in a matter before the jurisdiction of the executive branch and judicial branch of the Government of the United States.”

          The document said he altered another official’s June 2017 email to say Page (referred to as “Individual #1”) was “not a source” when the original email did not contain those words.

          The filing said another official took Clinesmith’s altered email, relied on it, and signed and submitted the renewed FISA application to the FISA Court.

          “The application for FISA #4 did not include Individual #1’s history or status with the OGA [other government agency],” the document read.”

          This, BTW, is an example of masking; Carter Page was only identified as “Individual #1.” IN OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS DISCUSSING CARTER PAGE. The OGA, we know know, was the CIA which identified Page as a cooperating source for the agency.

          They (NSA, FBI, etc.) were already reading Page’s communications and trying to fabricate a pretext for the NSA to target Page directly. Keep in mind the FISA warrant Clinesmith lied on was the fourth. The FBI/DoJ and NSA could find nothing incriminating in his electronic communications in all those months of surveillance. The only way they could legally target Page was if they had probable cause to believe American citizen Page was an agent for a foreign power. They had zero evidence of that, and moreover the CIA had just told the FBI that Page was working for them. So in the spirit of Lavrentiy Beria they fabricated the evidence to get the fourth FISA warrant.

          Which was apparently just fine with Judge Boasberg, gave Page a slap on the wrist. Why? Shouldn’t a judge be angry that someone would lie to a court to get what they want? If someone is convicted of lying to another court, should a judge who accepted such an individual’s guilty plea take the convicted individual’s word for anything, especially when that individual is expressing regret in order to get leniency. Moreover, Boasberg isn’t just a U.S. District Judge.

          “Judge Boasberg also served a seven-year term on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court beginning in May 2014. Appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts, he was the Court’s Presiding Judge from January 2020 to May 2021.”

          So Boasberg was on the FISC when Clinesmith lied to HIM and the other judges on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. So Clinesmith hadn’t lied to another judge; he had lied to the very judge who accepted his guilty plea. And Boasberg was the presiding judge of the court Clinesmith had lied to when he sentenced Clinesmith to…

          no real consequences. He ignored the prosecutions sentencing recommendations and gave the defense everything it asked for.

          How empty this slap on the wrist is illustrated by the “suspension” of Clinesmith’s law license that Boasberg is pretending is a “substantial penalty.” In June Clinesmith agreed to a proposed one year suspension of his law license. In other words, the D.C. bar association hadn’t yet suspended Clinesmith’s law license, and actually listed him as a “member in good standing” per public records.

          A D.C. bar hearing committee supposedly took up the matter on July 19. The results so far haven’t been made public. But if the hearing committee agrees to the negotiated plea deal (I believe they always do) then Clinesmith’s law license will be suspended for a year. Here’s the catch; the suspension will be retroactive to August 2020 when he pled guilty.

          “If the panel approves the penalty, Clinesmith would lose the ability to practice law until August 2021, one year after he reported his guilty plea to the D.C. disciplinary counsel’s office. Clinesmith’s bar license is suspended on an interim basis in Michigan, where he has an attorney license.

          The director of the Michigan attorney discipline board did respond to a request for comment Monday.”

          So Clinesmith will lose the ability to practice law for a WHOLE MONTH!! I’m sure he has his vacation booked already. And noticed the section I bolded. Boasberg could have ordered that Clinesmith’s clearance be permanently revoked. But he didn’t, leaving open the possibility that Clinesmith, a convicted felon, can get his old job back.

          So Clinesmith lied to the FISC. A court that clearly wants to be lied to when it suits the members’ political interests. Clinesmith therefore got no prison time, and paid no fines. 400 hours of community service? That’s easy enough to falsify if you know the right people. You simply have to have someone sign off on a sheet that you worked for a certain amount of time. You don’t actually have to work those hours; you just have to have someone say you did. Lot’s of crooked pols pull strings to get their relatives no-show jobs where they simply show up to collect the paychecks. It happens a lot in Chicago; Michelle Obama had such a $400k no-show job at the University of Chicago Hospital when her hubby Barack was a state senator. I forget her job title since it doesn’t matter. They invented it for her as the job never existed before Barack was a state senator. And she was never replaced after the Obamas moved to DC.

          Hell, now with direct deposit nobody even has to show up to collect the paycheck.

          Most jurisdictions allow people to earn credit simply by donating to designated charities. Or buying groceries for food banks. Another thing Clinesmith wouldn’t have to pay for out of pocket as I’m sure his influential friends would have loved to contribute to his GoFundMe account.

          Recall “Professor” Blasey-Ford, who then Senator Kamala Harris repeatedly insisted had no reason to lie? When Kamala Harris says someone has no reason to lie, start looking for their reason to lie. And Blasey-Ford’s reason to lie is because she’s a rabid leftist. I will only go into one of her lies. Like many people who live in Palo Alto she and her husband looked to make supplemental income by renting out part of their home. They converted a home office into a Mother-in-law apartment. According to the permits they had to file to legally do the work that explains the second front door installed at her home. She claimed she was afraid Brett Kavanaugh would charge into her home and rape her again; so she needed another door. What was the shower in the addition’s bathroom for? So they could shower together after the rape.

          And she was well paid for lying. In addition to getting numerous awards, she had over a million dollars in her GoFundMe account.

          Leftists protect their own. Boasberg was appointed to the federal bench in 2011. Pray tell me, who was the President who appointed him in 2011? Boasberg then made sure his fellow partner-in-crime suffered no actual harm for lying to the court to target Trump.

          Clinesmith is now running around telling anyone who will listen that he didn’t “knowingly” alter the email. There’s an obvious lie; there is no way anyone unknowingly alters an email to say the opposite of what the email actually says to get a warrant from a court. Boasberg clearly pretended to believe that because he clearly wanted to be lied to. No other FISC judge has made a fuss about this either. Actual judges normally are outraged when someone lies to them to get warrants, or in other pleadings. Recently on L.I. we had a post about a judge who took the extremely rare step of vacating one his own rulings because the beneficiary of that ruling lied to the court to get it.

          Boasberg is not such a judge. Neither is anyone else on the FISC. And, OBTW, Chief Justice Roberts appoints judges to that court. Apparently he doesn’t mind either.

          Now, who wants to bet that the very people Clinesmith supposedly lied to will work to stop him from getting his felony conviction expunged from his record.

          But as I said, no matter how flimsy the pretext like-minded leftists will pretend to believe it.

          The real crimes, Commochief, aren’t those that are against the law. It’s those these swamp creatures can get away with under color of authority since their actions will never be scrutinized.

It is well past the time to put this tired, old (81 years old last March!) hack out to pasture

There’s that vaunted collegiality and civility that democrats delight in accusing republicans of violating.

In a race to see whose mental decline is accelerating the fastest, perhaps Nancy is sprinting past POTUS after all. Moron? Pot, meet kettle.

Says the self worshipping rich 81 year old authoritarian totalitarian 60s era leftwing Marxist hypocritic and ignoramus.

When the facts are on your side, you cite them.

When they are not, you attack your opponent personally.

Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black.

Ohio Historian | July 29, 2021 at 8:31 am

A 100% vaccinated cohort wants masks to protect them. I thought that was the purpose of the vaccine?

Masks only slow the spread; they do not prevent it. The data also indicate that masks do a poor job of slowing the spread.

Seems to me this is worship at the altar of the great god “Sciunz” and putting on their equivalent of clerical collars.

A moron is a person who does the wrong thing, eventhough they know it is wrong.
A Nancy doesn’t know what she is doing is wrong.

The difference between a moron and an idiot.

barbiegirl ny | July 29, 2021 at 3:09 pm

Notice how she bloviated a non-answer when the old colostomy bag was asked [by a reporter] if she called McCarthy a moron. POS.

Pelosi’s fortune, all on the humble salary of a public official, says a lot about insider trading.