Posted on 03/28/2021 6:45:38 PM PDT by Wish2Post
Those who swore an oath to defend the Constitution have violated that oath by not arresting Pelosi as well as Jao Bai-din the fraud and Kamala Harris who's ineligible because she's not a natural born citizen.
Pentagon Officials Say Pelosi Asked Them To Stage A Military Coup Against President Trump Jan. 9, '21 - youtube video 35:37
Bette Davis—”Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?” — brilliant!
The answer is a big fat NO.
In North Carolina, NE of Chapel Hill and NW of Raleigh.
Or did you mean the alleged investigator, never seen by the public? (They just show the same photo again and again as if to prove there is such a person.)
Once again....Judicial Watch doing the investigating/questioning that RETHUGLICANS won’t.
You can donate to JW, to assist with their efforts.
An audio of this phone call with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley will reveal the alarming sounds of a madwoman attempting to compel one of America's high-ranking generals to join her in overthrowing an elected President.
Nancy will do al in her considerable power to quash Junicial Watch's attempt to access this damning phone call and put her at risk of a Treason charge.
Here’s the MSNBC You Tube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOGXkMmtl6I
With the title:
Rioters Walk Through Capitol Building,
Statuary Hall Outside of House Chamber
182,869 views
1,965 comments
Listen to the dialog from MSNBC news people
And please read some of the comments nearly
all from two months ago.
Does the video, audio and comments paint any
kind of picture that adds up to a riot?
The only savior in all of this would be the patriot military. Temporary control, military courts, convictions and sentencing. This would have them all running for the hills
And why exactly didn’t the General have Pelosi ARRESTED????
I wouldn’t go so far as to say I don’t think that John Durham exists. I’m just wondering why there is so little positive evidence in favor of the hypothesis that he does exist. Who is the man in the video? John Durham or an actor pretending to be John Durham?
Lawmakers who voted to reject requests to throw out "sacred cow” state-certified electoral votes for Biden on January 6 need to lose their jobs under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (14A) for not questioning possible state violations of the 12th Amendment (12A) which have arguably been arguably been going on for the last 100+ years imo.
"14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same [emphasis added], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Regarding so-called state “winner take all” laws for electoral votes for example, the states surrendered their power make such laws when they ratified 12A imo.
Excerpted from the 12th Amendment: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice- President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate [emphasis added];--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; […]"
Pelosi’s January 8 phone call adds to her alleged 12A problems with Section 3 of 14A imo.
And we may not be finished with Section 3.
I also hope that it can be applied to Supreme Court justices regarding the Trump Campaign-related Texas v. Pennsylvania case that the Supreme Court wrongly decided not to hear on the so-called basis of “no standing” imo.
More specifically, not only did the Supremes not invent the constitutionally undefined "no standing" excuse not to hear cases until Massachusetts v. Mellon, 1923, but Justice Joseph Story had previously clarified the Constitution’s state v. state clause.
"Article III, Section 2, Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States [emphasis added];—between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)-- between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
Based on the experience of the colonies, Story had written that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had made the state versus state clause to obligate (my word) the Supremes to consider evidence between conflicted states as a last effort try to avoid the worst possible outcome of such a conflict.
From the writings of Justice Joseph Story…
§ 1674. "Under the confederation, authority was given to the national government, to hear and determine, (in the manner pointed out in the article,) in the last resort, on appeal, all disputes and differences between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatsoever [!!! emphases added]. Before the adoption of this instrument, as well as afterwards, very irritating and vexatious controveries existed between several of the states, in respect to soil, jurisdiction, and boundary; and threatened the most serious public mischiefs. Some of these controversies were heard and determined by the court of commissioners, appointed by congress. But, notwithstanding these adjudications, the conflict was maintained in some cases, until after the establishment of the present constitution." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3, 1833, The University of Chicago Press.
§ 1675. "Before the revolution, controversies between the colonies, concerning the extent of their rights of soil, territory, jurisdiction, and boundary, under their respective charters, were heard and determined before the king in council, who exercised original jurisdiction therein, upon the principles of feudal sovereignty. This jurisdiction was often practically asserted, as in the case of the dispute between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, decided by the privy council, in 1679; and in the case of the dispute between New Hampshire and New York, in 1764. Lord Hardwicke recognised this appellate jurisdiction in the most deliberate manner, in the great case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore. The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time. Some tribunal, exercising such authority, is essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the government [emphasis added]. That it ought to be established under the national, rather than under the state, government; or, to speak more properly, that it can be safely established under the former only, would seem to be a position self-evident, and requiring no reasoning to support it. It may justly be presumed, that under the national government in all controversies of this sort, the decision will be impartially made according to the principles of justice; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality, by confiding it to the highest judicial tribunal." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.
For emphasis, from section 1675 above…
"The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.
Also, consider that the Civil War Union States ignored electoral votes of the Confederate States for the presidential election of 1864.
"Because eleven Southern states had declared secession from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America, only twenty-five states participated in the election." —Presidential election of 1864.
Finally, as another freeper has suggested, consider that Trump as private citizen actually has more flexibility to deal with many of the nation's problems, including alleged vote-counting fraud by desperate Democrats, than if he had remained in Oval Office.
In other words, if Trump needs the Oval Office he may just go back there.
Corrections, insights welcome.
That's slightly inaccurate, since one can't imagine them doing this to a Paul Ryan or a Mitch McConnell. It is more accurate to state that the government avoids pursuing political crimes carried out by verified insiders - if they are "on the team", then they are immune.
Hardly any Democrats remain outsiders, but some Republicans still are - thus the disparity.
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.