Speaker Pelosi Threatens Possibility of Armed Conflict Against U.S. Department of Justice…

The title is misleading as it was a lawyer who said Pelosi has the power to send the Congressional Sargent of arms to collect some paperwork from the DOJ which presently is refusing to turn over to congress. No where did I see or read that Pelosi actually threatened such an action; just lawyer talk.. But... It did get my blood pressure up when I saw the title simply because IMO Pelosi needs to stop drinking or change her meds..

Think about all of the media panel discussions on gun ownership you have watched; segments where second amendment advocates were ridiculed by media pundits for daring to bring up the possibility of the U.S. government using arms against U.S. citizens who hold opposing political views… There are hundreds of recent reference points.

Now consider, earlier today U.S. House of Representatives Legal Counsel, Douglas Letter, argued in court it would be a possible remedy -for a conflict between branches of government- for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to order an armed “gun battle” between the House and the United States Department of Justice. Yes, this actually happened.

At the same time as national Democrat political candidates are arguing to remove the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners, the highest ranking Democrat in the United States; a person only two succession-steps away from the presidency; is arguing in DC federal court the House could begin an armed conflict against the Dept. of Justice.

theconservativetreehouse.com...-180055< br /> The comment in court starts at 1:30 and it consist of sending the Sargent of arms to the DOJ.. I think the article is blown out of proportion to the actual event however if you listen it was brought up ..but was also followed by " Why we go to court so an armed confrontation can be avoided"..Hummm Does that mean, "Judge side with us or we will have to go to plan B ?"
youtu.be...


The first comment to the article said:

They won’t take out the Iranian militants but will take out the DOJ?

Ridiculous.

I had to smile at that..

Next thing when considering some kind of civil war is a Clemson Prof: "Civil War is Coming & It's Going to Get Violent" who was on " JoshTolley" youtube channel.. I doubt many will take the time to listen but he gives all kinds of reasons why he believes there is a strong possibility that such a thing just might happen.. I am a fence sitter (10% maybe and 90% it will not happen) as far as any kind major American armed conflict happening however, I am far removed from the states and can only get my news from articles and places like ATS.. So members of ATS might have a different take on the whole thing. youtu.be...

originally posted by: 727Sky
The title is misleading as it was a lawyer who said Pelosi has the power to send the Congressional Sargent of arms to collect some paperwork from the DOJ which presently is refusing to turn over to congress. No where did I see or read that Pelosi actually threatened such an action; just lawyer talk.. But... It did get my blood pressure up when I saw the title simply because IMO Pelosi needs to stop drinking or change her meds..

Think about all of the media panel discussions on gun ownership you have watched; segments where second amendment advocates were ridiculed by media pundits for daring to bring up the possibility of the U.S. government using arms against U.S. citizens who hold opposing political views… There are hundreds of recent reference points.

Now consider, earlier today U.S. House of Representatives Legal Counsel, Douglas Letter, argued in court it would be a possible remedy -for a conflict between branches of government- for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to order an armed “gun battle” between the House and the United States Department of Justice. Yes, this actually happened.

At the same time as national Democrat political candidates are arguing to remove the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners, the highest ranking Democrat in the United States; a person only two succession-steps away from the presidency; is arguing in DC federal court the House could begin an armed conflict against the Dept. of Justice.

theconservativetreehouse.com...-180055< br /> The comment in court starts at 1:30 and it consist of sending the Sargent of arms to the DOJ.. I think the article is blown out of proportion to the actual event however if you listen it was brought up ..but was also followed by " Why we go to court so an armed confrontation can be avoided"..Hummm Does that mean, "Judge side with us or we will have to go to plan B ?"
youtu.be...

The first comment to the article said:

They won’t take out the Iranian militants but will take out the DOJ?

Ridiculous.

I had to smile at that..

Next thing when considering some kind of civil war is a Clemson Prof: "Civil War is Coming & It's Going to Get Violent" who was on " JoshTolley" youtube channel.. I doubt many will take the time to listen but he gives all kinds of reasons why he believes there is a strong possibility that such a thing just might happen.. I am a fence sitter (10% maybe and 90% it will not happen) as far as any kind major American armed conflict happening however, I am far removed from the states and can only get my news from articles and places like ATS.. So members of ATS might have a different take on the whole thing. youtu.be...

War (from inside) has already started and will soon fill out onto the streets meanwhile our enemies approach in stealth due to mass distraction and will strike USA with its pants down.

It does not take a prophet to see this happening.........



DS

What Pelosi really needs to do on top of your suggestion is resign from public duty and life and give the country a chance to breath.

But she hasn't surfaced for a bit now so probably of at the next false flag meeting now that retaliation can be blamed on trump.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Well I for one hope you are wrong. Some of the big boys are saying the Iranian Sleeper cells in the USA are just waiting for their orders to strike..

I personally do not think anyone can even pass gas without the NSA knowing in the states. My question is will the NSA folks tell anyone what is going down ?

She still believing she is President and head of the executive branch of government ?
Someone impeach her.

Now consider, earlier today U.S. House of Representatives Legal Counsel, Douglas Letter, argued in court it would be a possible remedy -for a conflict between branches of government- for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to order an armed “gun battle” between the House and the United States Department of Justice. Yes, this actually happened.

Sa y what ?

When pressed by Rao about what would happen if the Justice Department refused to comply, the House counsel added: “We can send the sergeant-at-arms and he can have a gun battle.”

www.politico.com...

Sounds like a last ditch gambit at a real life coup.

They impeach because they didn't want a court fight.

Now they've escalated.

It's beyond idiotic that was even brought up.

a reply to: 727Sky

Speaker Pelosi Threatens Possibility of Armed Conflict Against U.S. Department of Justice

Yeah obviously the headline is "misleading", you got it from the conservative tree house after all!.

But since you already went there, wouldn't that just make her a patriotic American, according to the 2nd amendment?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: 727Sky

Speaker Pelosi Threatens Possibility of Armed Conflict Against U.S. Department of Justice

Yeah obviously the headline is "misleading", you got it from the conservative tree house after all!.

But since you already went there, wouldn't that just make her a patriotic American, according to the 2nd amendment?

No as most Patriotic Americans are law abiding citizens who believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. They legally carry Arms as the 2d says they can and even stop mass shooting or stabbings when they have to instead of waiting on the cops to show up after the mayhem and deaths ..

Eric Holder done an obstruction of congress with Fast and Furious. Nothing happened there. If William Barr wants to tell Nancy Pelosi, 'No', I guess he has the power as the current head of the judiciary.

Anyone know what this grand jury material is about? Sounds juicy whatever it is to have a gun fight over it. Probably just another fishing trip to impeach Trump if Nancy wants to bring it up in congress.

a reply to: 727Sky

this crap is whats wrong with the politics side of ATS

you post this crap - despite knowing its wrong

and still want to get mad at ms pelosi - for an event she didnt do

why is it seemingly impossible for you to confine your ire to mr letter ?????

he is the idot that thinks this is the way to donduct court business

dig he get his law degree in a ceareal packet ???????????????

ms pelosi is an idiot - but at least have the decency to attack her for her own adcts of idiocy

Yeah sounds blown out of proportion (title wise) of course it wouldn't surprise me if Pelosi actually wanted to do something like this to just further divide the country more, god forbid they actually do something GOOD for the country and do what they were elected to do. Of course they spew bs to the people when they campaign and con people out of their votes by acting like they will represent you, then when they get to Washington DC everything most of these candidates promised to their voters gets shat out the window and then only do what benefits themselves for however long their political career lasts. Come on people smarten up! Do research, ask questions and really try to know who you are voting for and that they will act in and represent their constituents interest. Drain the cesspool of people like Pelosi and the other "do nothings".

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: 727Sky

Speaker Pelosi Threatens Possibility of Armed Conflict Against U.S. Department of Justice

Yeah obviously the headline is "misleading", you got it from the conservative tree house after all!.

But since you already went there, wouldn't that just make her a patriotic American, according to the 2nd amendment?

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say one branch of govt can resolve it's disputes with the other with an armed gun battle??? Seems to me that the Democrats don't understand the House's place in the system of 3 co-equal branches of Govt.
They are trying to make their HALF of 1 branch of Congress a dictatorship.

a reply to: 727Sky

You do know that the sergeant of arms is not actually armed don't you?

He is in charge of keeping order. He doesn't shoot people to do that.

a reply to: UKTruth

No one is having a gun battle get a grip.
2nd

a reply to: Sillyolme

you do know that a retarded " solicitor " representing the democrats in court [ mr letter ] actualy did make the claim

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: 727Sky

You do know that the sergeant of arms is not actually armed don't you?

He is in charge of keeping order. He doesn't shoot people to do that.

Where did you get that ?
You better stop where you are at and do a bit of research.

“I didn’t carry it all the time," former Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Terrance W. Gainer said on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" Thursday morning. "I had it close at hand in a locked compartment." Gainer, who served as chief of the Capitol Police before his seven-year gig in the Senate, said he frequently relied on the uniformed officers of the department. "We have concentric circles of security around here and so they are the first line of defense, but as the chief law enforcement officer, I was armed when I needed to be or thought it was appropriate," he said.

Bold by me for subject matter.

Sergeant - at - Arms

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: 727Sky
The title is misleading as it was a lawyer who said Pelosi has the power to send the Congressional Sargent of arms to collect some paperwork from the DOJ which presently is refusing to turn over to congress. No where did I see or read that Pelosi actually threatened such an action; just lawyer talk.. But... It did get my blood pressure up when I saw the title simply because IMO Pelosi needs to stop drinking or change her meds..

Think about all of the media panel discussions on gun ownership you have watched; segments where second amendment advocates were ridiculed by media pundits for daring to bring up the possibility of the U.S. government using arms against U.S. citizens who hold opposing political views… There are hundreds of recent reference points.

Now consider, earlier today U.S. House of Representatives Legal Counsel, Douglas Letter, argued in court it would be a possible remedy -for a conflict between branches of government- for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to order an armed “gun battle” between the House and the United States Department of Justice. Yes, this actually happened.

At the same time as national Democrat political candidates are arguing to remove the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners, the highest ranking Democrat in the United States; a person only two succession-steps away from the presidency; is arguing in DC federal court the House could begin an armed conflict against the Dept. of Justice.

theconservativetreehouse.com...-180055< br /> The comment in court starts at 1:30 and it consist of sending the Sargent of arms to the DOJ.. I think the article is blown out of proportion to the actual event however if you listen it was brought up ..but was also followed by " Why we go to court so an armed confrontation can be avoided"..Hummm Does that mean, "Judge side with us or we will have to go to plan B ?"
youtu.be...

The first comment to the article said:

They won’t take out the Iranian militants but will take out the DOJ?

Ridiculous.

I had to smile at that..

Next thing when considering some kind of civil war is a Clemson Prof: "Civil War is Coming & It's Going to Get Violent" who was on " JoshTolley" youtube channel.. I doubt many will take the time to listen but he gives all kinds of reasons why he believes there is a strong possibility that such a thing just might happen.. I am a fence sitter (10% maybe and 90% it will not happen) as far as any kind major American armed conflict happening however, I am far removed from the states and can only get my news from articles and places like ATS.. So members of ATS might have a different take on the whole thing. youtu.be...

War (from inside) has already started and will soon fill out onto the streets meanwhile our enemies approach in stealth due to mass distraction and will strike USA with its pants down.

It does not take a prophet to see this happening.........

DS

Pretty much believe the same.

That accuracy percentage seems to go up by the day.

You don't think she'll actually do it?

On a somewhat humorous and satirical note...if there were ever an armed conflict between Senators and Congress persons, I would definitely pay to watch that on pay-per-view!!!

Thinning some of that herd of feral dogs, regardless of red or blue, by their own hands, would probably not be a bad thing!

Only thing I'm trying to figure out is if it would be a comedy show, or a drama show. Maybe like Law & Order on mind altering substances in a South Park kinda' way.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Lawyers making this kind of argument is what's wrong. That's a huge part of what made the Citizens United ruling. Government lawyers like this idiot argued that the law struck down would give government the power to ban even books with speech in it it didn't like.

No one thinks about that, and when/if this case is tossed, the left will make all kinds of excuses about how the judge is biased, etc., but really it will be because they had a nutjob lawyer admitting they think it could give them latitude to send armed forces to collect what they want if they don't get their way.

Whether or not it would ever happen is immaterial. That the argument is made alone suggests it's a parameter that was thought of at some point and therefore something potentially intended as legal latitude.

What judge authorizes that kind of thing? Would you?