Pelosi now says that she tore up Trump’s speech to get attention. This is her second explanation, and it does not gibe with her earlier one, which was that she did it because the alternatives were worse. What did she want to do, spit on it? Set it afire? Walk off the stage? Turn her back? Interrupt Trump? Unsheath a knife or a scissors?

My instantaneous reaction to this latest statement of hers is that she’s lying (making it up), because she could have given a speech afterward pinpointing the errors she claims Trump made on every page. She made this explanation up after the fact. She wasn’t thinking that at the time. She either pre-planned it or else did it in a pique of emotion. I believe the latter is true. Here’s why. She said afterward that her tearing it up was better than the alternatives. The implication was that she wanted to do or say something more violent because she was emotionally distressed at him — angry, and frustrated that she did not have the podium and he did. She couldn’t speak and express her disapproval but he could. She didn’t do it to gain attention to his errors or draw attention to her better ideas, but to let off steam and rain on his parade at the same time.

This much can be granted. Just maybe she did it to divert attention from his speech, which is a little different. But I do not think that she decided “I’ll divert attention from his nonsense. I’ll gain the attention.” No, hers was an act of sabotage, an emotionally-based act, an interference in what is his constitutional obligation, like booing or heckling. Hers was a symbolic act of rejection, certainly clever in that aspect, but clearly not in the spirit of free speech. It was more in the spirit of antifa, that group of fascists who aim to suppress speech they dislike. She’s in tune with that.

I do not claim to be able to read someone’s mind, but I do think we can put 2 and 2 together, and we can tell when something is not quite right or sounds phony. This sounds phony to me, an ex post rationale to make herself sound more rational about the whole affair. And it does not square with what she said earlier about the alternatives she was avoiding. She’s been mightily peeved at Trump for months and months. They did not shake hands. She barely introduced him. His speech was on her turf, but it was beyond her control. She was frustrated at having no control. Not only that, this speech did not conform at all to the usual soporific State of the Union.

It was underlying spite, petty ill-will, and hatred toward Trump built up over many months and a number of clashes with him combined with anger and frustration on the spot that motivated Pelosi, not a calm, cool and collected political decision. And she as much as admitted this right after the event. When asked why she tore it up, she replied “It was the courteous thing to do, considering the alternative.”

The Best of Michael S. Rozeff