‘I became once unhappy for the institution’: Nancy Pelosi speaks out about McCarthy speaker vote

I want to start with the spectacle we saw on the House floor a couple of weeks ago. Republicans taking 15 votes to elect Kevin McCarthy speaker. Forget the partizanship, republican versus Democrat. As a political pro watching that. What did you think?.

Well, I was sad for the institution. They should have had their act together. They should have gotten it done. And that was sad. It was nothing to be amused by or laugh at or any of it was sad for the institution. So was it worth his doing it? I mean, yes, it was kind of ugly.

And and not particularly dignified. But he did get elected speaker in the House. Well, 15 times. I mean, that's kind of start. I would hope that he would get it done right. From the start. What's the challenge? Let's figure this out. Let's get it done.

And if not, let's move on to someone else. I want to pick up on that. Your daughter, Alexander, has done a fascinating documentary about you called Pelosi in the House, which is running right now on HBO, Max.

And in it, she shows you rounding up votes back in 2018 to be elected speaker. Take a look. I have a good feel for where the votes are in my caucus. Since the election, she has met in person with 67 members or members elect. So how do you get people's votes?.

Do you just break their knees and make no And I'mvery respectful of people's views. So I want to hear what they are. I want to hear what people have to say. You can vote by listening So what would you have done if you were McCarthy and you got to the first day of the actual session?.

You know,you've gone through all of this stuff before. And you didn't have the votes. I would have had the votes. I knew I had the votes. I mean, I don't. I had well over 200 votes in the caucus, so I knew I would have the votes.

It was never a question. What happens? Chris, just so you know, is the press makes a big thing of opposition. You know, say, oh, so-and-so said this and so-and-so said that. But it isn't as.

It's not as it may sell papers, but it's not really the true picture. Of what is happening there. McCarthy says that he is going to kick three Democrats off their committees here. Here they are. Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Ilhan Omar.

And he says that you set the precedent because in the last session, the Democrats kicked two Republicans, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar off their committees. Didn't you open the door to this? No. We set a precedent, which I hope that will follow.

If they have members, as they did with threatened, the security of our members on the committee were a danger to our members threatening them, then they would go off the committee. So if they have that accusation about any of our members,.

Let's hear what they have to say. It was clear that their members were a threat to our members. So this is about maintaining safety for our members. The fact that they want to take these people off the committee.

Is more philosophic as philosophical. During the long vote for speaker, millions of Americans were riveted by the action on the floor and they saw stuff they had never seen before. As you can see up here on the screen.

Now with the speaker talking to Matt Gaetz and then another bit hold back. I mean, it was fascinating stuff. The fact is, though, that normally once the speaker is in charge, that C-SPAN is sharply limited in what it can show. It basically can show the speaker.

Up on the podium, it can show whoever is talking, which member is talking on the wall of the House. There's been a push to change the rules to allow people to see what really is going on on the floor.

Do you support that or not? Well, it depends. I don't have any objection to transparency and the rest. And you didn't allow it when you were a speaker. But I don't I think it's supposed to be about following the procedure.

The debate in the Congress. And if there's more opportunity for that, fine. But I don't think it should be used as a tool against members. I saw you talking to so-and-so on the floor, and they said that that that shouldn't be the case.

This was remarkable, because when we when this was all going on, you have to remember there were no rules in that house. Right. Anything went. And sometimes they said terrible things on the Republican side, but we couldn't challenge it because there were no rules of the House.

And forgetting whether it's rules or not, foot for the potential speaker or anyone to go up to a member in that manner. This just does not bring dignity to the house of represent. Let me see if I got this right there. Basically, you're saying.

You liked the rules the way they are. Follow the official proceedings. If there's something going on in one of the aisles, you don't want that on TV. Well, it depends on what it is. I don't know. I don't I don't want it to curb the party action that might.

Happen on the floor. That might be positive. But by and large, my view is the more transparency, the better. We now have not one but two special counsels. Yeah. One investigating President Trump, former President Trump.

One investigating current President Joe Biden for their handling of classified documents. Here's what you had to say about Donald Trump and his problems this summer. Take a look. If the nature of this.

Of these documents is what appears to be, this is very serious. Do you think that classified documents showing up in Joe Biden's office home six years after he was vice president, do you think that's also very serious? Well,it depends on the nature of the documents.

What I said as you were listening was if the nature of these documents is what it appears to be, we don't know. But what we were talking about, it was the highest level of classification of the documents. And so I think you have to talk about.

The procedure. President Biden has said his lawyers are finding these and bringing them out President Trump was obstructing obstructing access to them. So I think you look at volume, you look at procedure,.

And then you have to see what the nature of the driver. But we don't know what the nature is. But you said it perfectly in the beginning. There are two special counsels. Let the let the truth come forth by the special counsel's. But you're.

Talking about the nature of the documents, if the documents turned out to be very sensitive. The Biden documents that would be very unusual. Don't I said they're if. Right.Yeah, that would be very serious. Well, we'll see what they are.

I don't think that having a briefing on a meeting with somebody, you know. We used to tease up an intelligence committee and just say, be careful because they're going to stamp classified on The Washington Post. I understand that the cases are.

Very different. You talk about the number of documents where they were, the question of transparency and cooperation by the the two men. You said it very well. Thank you. But as a practical matter, isn't it going to be impossible, even if the facts were to bear out.

That Trump committed a crime and should be charged? Isn't it as a practical matter, impossible, given the fact that Biden had documents and his office had documents in his home? Well, it depends. It depends.

And that's what you have a special. I think that again, I said you said it perfectly to begin with. The attorney general asked someone to review to see if a special prosecutor was recommended. He said, yes,.

There was a special prosecutor for Joe Biden, even though the cases are quite different. We don't know until the special prosecutor does all of the investigation. Is it when you say is it harder I don't know.

I don't know. It just depends on what comes out of the investigations.

Sharing is caring!