Here's What Pelosi Said In 1998 About Giving A President A Preview Of A Report. It Isn't What She's Saying Now.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi revealed her enormous hypocrisy on Thursday, blasting Attorney General William Barr for giving President Trump...

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi revealed her enormous hypocrisy on Thursday, blasting Attorney General William Barr for giving President Trump’s team a “sneak preview” of the Mueller Report. Pelosi tweeted:

AG Barr has confirmed the staggering partisan effort by the Trump Admin to spin public’s view of the #MuellerReport – complete with acknowledgment that the Trump team received a sneak preview. It’s more urgent than ever that Special Counsel Mueller testify before Congress.

Nancy Pelosi

✔@SpeakerPelosi

AG Barr has confirmed the staggering partisan effort by the Trump Admin to spin public’s view of the #MuellerReport – complete with acknowledgment that the Trump team received a sneak preview. It’s more urgent than ever that Special Counsel Mueller testify before Congress.

(((Rep. Nadler)))

✔@RepJerryNadler

It is clear Congress and the American people must hear from Special Counsel Robert Mueller in person to better understand his findings. We are now requesting Mueller to appear before @HouseJudiciary as soon as possible.

7:57 PM - Apr 18, 2019

• 43.8K
• 28K people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

But as NTK Network points out, in 1998, Pelosi had the opposite perspective: when the House was debating H.R. 525, which demanded the immediate public release of Ken Starr’s report revolving around Bill Clinton’s sex scandal with Monica Lewinsky, Pelosi turned to House Speaker Newt Gingrich and stated:

Mr. Speaker, for seven of the eleven years that I have served in Congress, I have served on the Ethics Committee or the ethics task force. It is from that perspective that I have several questions to ask. If indeed what we are talking about here today is the process under which the Starr report will be released, why then have the airwaves been filled with details of the Starr report for the last 36 hours? It has supposedly been under lock and key here. One can only assume the leaks are coming from the independent counsel’s office. My second question is to you, Mr. Speaker: Why would you not afford the President of the United States the same opportunity you were given by the Ethics Committee of having almost a week’s advance notice to review the charges against you, and so that you could have your response be part of the report?

As NTK Network notes, “Pelosi was referring to an Ethics Committee investigation into Gingrich, which resulted in the House officially reprimanding Gingrich for claiming tax-exempt status for a college course that was run for political purposes.”

 

For Pelosi to complain about partisanship is highly amusing; as recently as last week, when the Associated Press asked Pelosi what would satisfy Democrats, she answered, “I’ll be satisfied when we have a new president of the United States who is a Democrat.” She added, “I am from the left. I’m a progressive Democrat from San Francisco ... and I’m proud of who I am.”

One can understand Pelosi’s utter frustration after Mueller’s report cleared Trump of any collusion with Russia; after all, this is the same woman who said as far back as June 2017 in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, “And I think it's important for the American people to know, what do the Russians have on Donald Trump — politically, financially, personally — that he is standing in the way of this legitimate investigation as to Russian impact on our election, and to prevent them from doing it again.”

Pelosi’s partisanship goes beyond the enmity she has for Trump and extends to those who do not endorse her political views; in October 2018 she said she would accept “collateral damage” for those who disagreed with those views, saying:

 

We have to have total clarity about what we do when it comes to everything — a woman’s right to choose, gay marriage ... whether it’s about immigration, whether it’s about gun safety, whether it’s about climate ... I think that we owe the American people to be there for them, for their financial security, respecting the dignity and worth of every person in our country, and if there’s some collateral damage for some others who do not share our view, well, so be it, but it shouldn't be our original purpose."

Video below: