If you watch the very start of the tantrum, it's apparent she started, then the camera changed to a wide angle shot of the floor.  Once the camera was back on her, she started ripping.

Did not watch it, but from the video replays, it lloks like she keeps looking down at a monitor or maybe a cellphone to know when the camera was on her.

Very staged, very fake, the usual demorat play.

If you watch the very start of the tantrum, it's apparent she started, then the camera changed to a wide angle shot of the floor.  Once the camera was back on her, she started ripping.

Maybe she has trouble tearing more than 2 pieces of paper at a time, but it seems more like she was repeating the rip over and over just to make sure the cameras caught it.

She totally blew any issue disagreements the Dems will try to discuss now.  They don't care about anything Trump said -- only about regaining power by any means necessary.

I really hope a Republican is sitting next to Pence at the next SOTU address.

Didn't notice the camera angle thing.  It did seem "off" somehow from what I recall from previous SOTU, where they seemed to quickly try to capture who all is there and rushing to shake hands with POTUS.  Maybe I was watching MSBNC, CNN, etc years back. . .

Agree with the "they don't care" part.  I don't post political stuff on SM, but after #PelosiTantrum, I did post some.  Don't care which side you're on, her actions were despicable.  They argue upholding the Constitution on one hand (impeachment), but then crap on it otherwise.  It's just a piece of paper to her to use to her advantage when it suits her, and crap on it when it doesn't. . .

I agree. It could have been Trump did not see her out stretched hand. But how could he miss so much sagging skin? 

I like the standing up and clapping. For me it's a tradition that shows relative patriotism. If both both sides do it. Otherwise watching the Dems mostly sit when good things are announced that both sides support, to me just shows lack of respect. And of course it is tradition that the SCOTUS and the Armed Service guys do not clap nor stand at all.

You have PDS 

There were a few times when the SCOTUS and the Joint Chiefs (and other .mil leaders) did standing ovations.  Not often, but I was watching if there were time when they did acknowledge, but the "white coats" behind them didn't. . .

The entire Pelosi tantrum was pre-planned.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently made tiny tears in her copy of President Trump’s State of the Union address —
so that her speech-ripping moment could go off without a hitch.

As Trump introduced cancer-stricken radio host Rush Limbaugh — who received the Medal of Freedom during the speech —
Pelosi could be seen grabbing the pages off the table.

Video shows her making what seemed to be a tearing motion and then placing the pages back on the table.

Photos of the sheets of paper show them face down on the table with small slits on the side, near where Pelosi would
eventually rip them into pieces.

https://nypost.com/2020/02/05/nancy-pelosi-pre-ripped-pages-of-trumps-sotu-speech-video-shows/

House Republicans have introduced a resolution to condemn Pelosi's lack of decorum, rudeness and for intentionally destroying an official government document.

She can't defend her actions as a spontaneous emotional response to the speech.  Not only was it obviously staged, but she received the text of the speech well in advance, as do all members of Congress and the press.  Speeches are released ahead of time to allow for news print agencies to include actual quotes in their stories immediately after the event, and to allow any rebuttals to have prepared comments immediately afterward.

Pam Bondi on FOX News this morning made an interesting point.

The copy of the speech Pelosi ripped on camera was an original of the speech that was signed by the President.  That copy is supposed to be entered into the Congressional record, and as such it belongs to the Congress, not Pelosi.

FL Congressman Matt Gaetz not only filed an ethics complaint claiming Pelosi violated House and Senate rules regarding decorum, but he also referred her to the DOJ for an investigation into whether she violated federal record law.

It's about time the GOP started hitting back using the Dem's own tactics.

Pam Bondi on FOX News this morning made an interesting point.

The copy of the speech Pelosi ripped on camera was an original of the speech that was signed by the President.  That copy is supposed to be entered into the Congressional record, and as such it belongs to the Congress, not Pelosi.

FL Congressman Matt Gaetz not only filed an ethics complaint claiming Pelosi violated House and Senate rules regarding decorum, but he also referred her to the DOJ for an investigation into whether she violated federal record law.

It's about time the GOP started hitting back using the Dem's own tactics.

4D chess. Why use indestructible paper.  Then cannot charge for destroying a record.

Things that stuck with me:
1) Pelosi’s actions. Regardless of who you support or are against, her actions here super disrespectful on so many levels and many instances. How people were paying attention to her and her fellow “white coats”. Many comments on HNN roasting her, which is surprising.

In light of some of the disrespectful things Trump has done in the past I find no reason to be upset at this. Republicans can't be fine with Trump's unique style then become so offended because she ripped up a speech copy.  That is snowflake level action.

In light of some of the disrespectful things Trump has done in the past I find no reason to be upset at this. Republicans can't be fine with Trump's unique style then become so offended because she ripped up a speech copy.  That is snowflake level action.

I didn't say anything about defending Trump or Rep position.  I said it was disrespectful regardless of which position you are (Rep/Dem/whatever).  They must respect the Office and their position, including the traditions.  Many politicians don't, but that's a different story.  My comments was on Pelosi's actions and not anything beyond.  Please read and don't add your opinion to what I said. . . If you want to defend Pelosi, have at it.  If you can't see the hypocrisy in her actions, then whatevers. . .

I wish Trump would respect the office and their positions a bit more.

I am of the mindset that the right thing to do is show respect even when it wasn't shown to you but I also know how tempting it is to respond in kind.

The biggest hypocrisy I see is republicans getting butt-hurt because she tore up a speech. I mean seriously, Trump has used juvenile insults on other congressman, insulted veterans, and said other numerous disrespectful things, and his supporters have the balls to complain Nancy was rude?

I wish Trump would respect the office and their positions a bit more.

I am of the mindset that the right thing to do is show respect even when it wasn't shown to you but I also know how tempting it is to respond in kind.

The biggest hypocrisy I see is republicans getting butt-hurt because she tore up a speech. I mean seriously, Trump has used juvenile insults on other congressman, insulted veterans, and said other numerous disrespectful things, and his supporters have the balls to complain Nancy was rude?

Mr. "What-About-Trump" thinks he has a valid point.

Pelosi doesn't get a pass for disrespecting the Chamber of which she is speaker.

Pelosi doesn't get to destroy a signed original copy of a speech SHE invited the President to give to the nation.  The copy belongs to the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and is part of the official record.  She destroyed a government document.

Trump would already be facing two more articles of impeachment (at least) if he tore up an official record on national TV in a choreographed fake tantrum.

Mr. "What-About-Trump" thinks he has a valid point.

Knows, not thinks. I can get a dictionary if you can't tell the difference between those two words

Pelosi doesn't get a pass for disrespecting the Chamber of which she is speaker.

But Trump does?

Pelosi doesn't get to destroy a signed original copy of a speech SHE invited the President to give to the nation.  The copy belongs to the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and is part of the official record.  She destroyed a government document.

Nope, not in this day and age. This was a copy of a speech, she wasn't required to keep it, maintain it, or file it away somewhere. Plus documents are electronic and they can print up a new one. It's not like someone hand-wrote it and it is the only one. It was not an archival record. You gotta really be drinking a lot of kool-aid to fall for this one.

Trump would already be facing two more articles of impeachment (at least) if he tore up an official record on national TV in a choreographed fake tantrum.

Wrong.

Knows, not thinks. I can get a dictionary if you can't tell the difference between those two words


But Trump does?


Nope, not in this day and age. This was a copy of a speech, she wasn't required to keep it, maintain it, or file it away somewhere. Plus documents are electronic and they can print up a new one. It's not like someone hand-wrote it and it is the only one. It was not an archival record. You gotta really be drinking a lot of kool-aid to fall for this one.


Wrong.

Everything you just posted is 100% opinion -- your opinion.

Gaetz filing ethics complaint against Pelosi for 'destroying' Trump speech

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) announced that he is filing an ethics complaint against Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
for “destroying” a copy of President Trump’s speech after his State of the Union address.

“BREAKING: I'm filing an ethics complaint against @SpeakerPelosi for destroying @realDonaldTrump's State of
the Union speech,” Gaetz tweeted late Wednesday. “Her conduct was beneath the dignity of the House, and a
potential violation of law (18 USC 2071).”

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/481796-gaetz-files-ethics-complaint-against-pelosi-for-destroying-trump-speech

As usual, I share facts, you only have your unsupported opinions.

Everything you just posted is 100% opinion -- your opinion.

Gaetz filing ethics complaint against Pelosi for 'destroying' Trump speech

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/481796-gaetz-files-ethics-complaint-against-pelosi-for-destroying-trump-speech

As usual, I share facts, you only have your unsupported opinions.

It is your job to prove it is a crime, not mine to prove there was no crime.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/02/07/us/politics/ap-us-trump-pelosi-fact-check.html

"Heidi Kitrosser, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, said: “This is not an archival document. ... This is one of many, many, many copies of President Trump's speech and Nancy Pelosi is free to do with it whatever she will.”


By the way, the article you posted is basically just snowflake Gaetz' opinion so you get an "F" for providing so called facts. The only facts in the article is that Gaetz filed a complaint.

It is your job to prove it is a crime, not mine to prove there was no crime.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/02/07/us/politics/ap-us-trump-pelosi-fact-check.html

"Heidi Kitrosser, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, said: “This is not an archival document. ... This is one of many, many, many copies of President Trump's speech and Nancy Pelosi is free to do with it whatever she will.”


By the way, the article you posted is basically just snowflake Gaetz' opinion so you get an "F" for providing so called facts. The only facts in the article is that Gaetz filed a complaint.

Who are you telling to prove a crime?  Me?

LOL!!!  You're living in an alternate reality.  You didn't address the facts in the article I linked.  Why is that?


Trollin ......

Who are you telling to prove a crime?  Me?

LOL!!!  You're living in an alternate reality.  You didn't address the facts in the article I linked.  Why is that?

Because the article didn't contain any facts to support your claim of a crime. It only said Gaetz requested a criminal referral for a "potential violation"

Plus my article thoroughly rebutted your claim.

 

Because the article didn't contain any facts to support your claim of a crime. It only said Gaetz requested a criminal referral for a "potential violation"

Plus my article thoroughly rebutted your claim.

 

Read the statute Gaetz referenced.  Not my job to spoon-feed you the truth.

Pam Bondi on FOX News this morning made an interesting point.

The copy of the speech Pelosi ripped on camera was an original of the speech that was signed by the President.  That copy is supposed to be entered into the Congressional record, and as such it belongs to the Congress, not Pelosi.

FL Congressman Matt Gaetz not only filed an ethics complaint claiming Pelosi violated House and Senate rules regarding decorum, but he also referred her to the DOJ for an investigation into whether she violated federal record law.

It's about time the GOP started hitting back using the Dem's own tactics.

The original given to Pelosi is the original that is supposed to be entered into the congressional record. Pelosi is supposed to enter that original into the congressional record. If Gaetz had not entered a copy (Not Pelosi’s original as required) there would be no congressional record of the speech. Trump’s speech did not go on the attack towards the Democrats. I expected he would have. I’m glad he didn’t. There is a time and a place for it and the SOTU is not that time nor place. Trump actually showed some class and came out as the bigger person that night. Especially over Pelosi and most of the Dems. He looked and sounded absolutely presidential. It’s not the first time, and I hope it’s not the last. I think he is learning (albeit slowly) when it is beneficial to be on the attack and when to be the bigger person.

As Ben Shapiro says in his podcast, that night he was “Good Trump”.

Reagan started these more partisan SOTU speeches where the president recognizes people and accomplishments of his party and not the government (both parties) as a whole. The SOTU used to be quite different before Reagan. While I enjoy the speeches I wonder if we should go back to the more non-partisan type of speech that we used to have.

The original given to Pelosi is the original that is supposed to be entered into the congressional record. Pelosi is supposed to enter that original into the congressional record. If Gaetz had not entered a copy (Not Pelosi’s original as required) there would be no congressional record of the speech. Trump’s speech did not go on the attack towards the Democrats. I expected he would have. I’m glad he didn’t. There is a time and a place for it and the SOTU is not that time nor place. Trump actually showed some class and came out as the bigger person that night. Especially over Pelosi and most of the Dems. He looked and sounded absolutely presidential. It’s not the first time, and I hope it’s not the last. I think he is learning (albeit slowly) when it is beneficial to be on the attack and when to be the bigger person.

As Ben Shapiro says in his podcast, that night he was “Good Trump”.

Reagan started these more partisan SOTU speeches where the president recognizes people and accomplishments of his party and not the government (both parties) as a whole. The SOTU used to be quite different before Reagan. While I enjoy the speeches I wonder if we should go back to the more non-partisan type of speech that we used to have.

Many people have labeled Trump's speech as the best SOTU in modern history, at least as good as -- if not better than -- Reagan's speeches.

The first SOTU address in an administration is meant to preview the policies and objectives of the new President.

The SOTU address given in the year the President is running for reelection is always a review of accomplishments, and a proposal to accomplish more in the second term.

Yet, the Leftist MSM decried this SOTU as a "campaign rally".

You can't fix stupid.  EVERY SOTU address given when the president is running for reelection contains the exact same thing.  What set Trump's speech apart from his predecessors' was:|

a.  He has SO MANY achievements and successes to talk about, one speech doesn't allow time for all the minor ones -- only the really big ones, and

b.  He spent so much more of his time recognizing others in attendance, and not as much time saying "I", "me" and "my" -- unlike the previous President's speeches.

People have tallied the number of times Obama used personal pronouns in his speeches, and the contrast with Trump's speeches is staggering.

According to LAWYERS, not only is Pelosi possibly subject to House rules and ethics violations, the federal statute she willfully violated on national television carries several potential penalties:

1. fine

2.  imprisonment up to three years

3.  removal from her position as speaker and removal from office

4.  disbarment from ever holding a government position in the future

If the Speaker is god going to grasp at the thinnest of straws to try and remove the President, it's only fair that members of the House likewise use this stunt to remove Pelosi.

It's a brave, new world, where the GOP is no longer afraid to play by the Democrat's rules.

BREAKING, Nancy Pelosi FELONY Notice – Dems Scrambling For Answers

Many people have labeled Trump's speech as the best SOTU in modern history, at least as good as -- if not better than -- Reagan's speeches.

The first SOTU address in an administration is meant to preview the policies and objectives of the new President.

The SOTU address given in the year the President is running for reelection is always a review of accomplishments, and a proposal to accomplish more in the second term.

Yet, the Leftist MSM decried this SOTU as a "campaign rally".

You can't fix stupid.  EVERY SOTU address given when the president is running for reelection contains the exact same thing.  What set Trump's speech apart from his predecessors' was:|

a.  He has SO MANY achievements and successes to talk about, one speech doesn't allow time for all the minor ones -- only the really big ones, and

b.  He spent so much more of his time recognizing others in attendance, and not as much time saying "I", "me" and "my" -- unlike the previous President's speeches.

People have tallied the number of times Obama used personal pronouns in his speeches, and the contrast with Trump's speeches is staggering.

While the speech itself might be one of the best, if not the best, I still think no one can deliver a speech better than Reagan. He just had a delivery that was so unique that he could literally convince everyone in the US that Pelosi is a tea totaler.

While I really liked Tuesday’s speech I think he could have included the house in the few things they did. And he could have given more credit to his administration. And he could have given more credit to Mitch and the senate. But overall “Good Trump”.