Pelosi: We Had An Open Primary And Kamala Harris Won It, "It's Just Nobody Got In Because She Had A Running Start" (drunk Nancy alert)

Speaker Emerita Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) talks about the nomination of Kamala Harris during an interview with Semafor's Kadia Goba.

KADIA GOBA, SEMAFOR: You had reportedly said you wanted a sort of an open primary when Joe Biden stepped down. Did you change your mind because you saw all the excitement around Kamala Harris?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: No, I didn't change my mind. We had an open primary and she won it. Nobody else got in the race because she was politically astute and that was the thought.

Let's show our talent. We have a great bench, all these great people in the country and the president endorsed her and that's a big deal because Joe Biden is the most consequential president of modern times.

He accomplished so much more. I mean even Barack Obama in his eight years in service would admit that in the short period of time that Joe Biden had the majority, which was two years of his four-year term. But it's not just about legislating, which we share that success, that legacy of what we did.

So he's very consequential, highly respected and was to be our nominee and then he, because he knows the job of vice president, appointed her vice president three and a half years ago and because he knows the job of president, endorsed her for president. And so yes, people could have jumped in. There were some people who were sort of preparing but she just took off with it and actually it was a blessing because there wasn't that much time between then and the election and it sort of saved time.

It wasn't that we didn't have an open president. It's just that nobody got in because she had a running start.

Thank you for referencing that article DoodleBob. Please note that the following critique is directed at elite Democrats and RINOs and not at you.

"Pelosi: We Had An Open Primary And Kamala Harris Won It, "It's Just Nobody Got In Because She Had A Running Start" (drunk Nancy alert)"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Desperate Democrats are seemingly clueless (blatantly ignoring?) probable MAJOR constitutional problems with OHarris being the Democratic nominee for POTUS. Let's start with Section 2 of the 14th Amendment (14A) imo.

From related threads ...

Consider that Section 2 is a penalty for states where election-related fraud has occurred. More specifically, given the zero tolerance, "hair trigger" wording of that section, Democrats violated that section (imo) when they unconstitutionally threw out 14+ million primary votes for OBiden, unilaterally replacing him with OHarris, who is not constitutionally qualified to be either POTUS or VP imo, more on that shortly.

"But when the right to vote at any election"
"is denied to any"
"or in any way abridged,"
"Section 2 of 14A: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election [all emphases added] for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." [Apportionment of Representatives]
"Section 5 of 14A: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

In fact, consider that the post-Civil War congressional Republicans who drafted Section 2 made it to discourage Southern Democrats (my words) from rigging the ballot boxes that Democrats are now alleged to have done for 2020, 2022 and possibly earlier elections!

"Because slavery (except as punishment for crime) had been abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment, the freed slaves would henceforth be given full weight for purposes of apportionment. This situation was a concern to the Republican leadership of Congress, who worried that it would increase the political power of the former slave states, even as such states continued to deny freed slaves the right to vote." —Apportionment of Representatives

With Section 2 in mind, consider that if this were a better world, in stark contrast to ignoring Section 2 like Pence and the J6 Congress seemingly did concerning alleged voting problems in 2020, the feds should actually be warning all states before an election that the feds will be darkening the doorway of any state to investigate allegations of possible violations of constitutional voting integrity protections.

Also, regarding possibly big problems with OHarris's constitutional eligibility requirements for POTUS, if I understand correctly, neither of her parents were citizens when she was born. And if such is the case, the following information has removed any doubts for me that she is not a natural born citizen (NBC), therefore not qualified to be either POTUS or VP.

Regardless that media has presented NBC as a mystery because it is not defined in the Constitution but in the strange Law of Nations, it turns out that Justice John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, had clarified in an official note that the Law of Nations is as much US law as the Constitution is.

Excerpted from the writings of Chief Justice John Jay:

"That you may percieve more clearly the Extent and objects of your Inquiries, it may be proper to observe that the Laws of the united States admit of being classed under three Heads or³ Descriptions—
1^st. all Treaties made under the authority of the united States.
2^dly. The Laws of nations [emphasis added]—
3^dly. The Constitution, and Statutes of the united States—"
—John Jay’s Charge to the Grand Jury, the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia, 22 May 1793

Again, OHarris does not satisfy POTUS qualification requirements of constitutional drafters imo.

Since Congress and renegade states have repeatedly proven that they are enemies of the people imo, it is now up to Democratic and Republican Trump supporters to effectively "impeach and remove" ALL (exceptions?) state and federal lawmakers and executives in November.

In fact, it's up to us Trump supporters to take the first MAJOR step in draining the swamp by supporting hopeful Trump 47 with a new, Constitution-respecting Congress, new state lawmakers too, not only so that he will not be a lame duck president from the first day of his second term, but will support him to quickly finish draining the swamp.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Bizarro Planet