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

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I admit it would be somewhat entertaining, but at the same time, it would be ominous. The last time they got to trying to kill each other, the entire nation shortly devolved into Civil War.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I admit it would be somewhat entertaining, but at the same time, it would be ominous. The last time they got to trying to kill each other, the entire nation shortly devolved into Civil War.

ya know what? WHy didnt that judge hold the lawyer in contempt for threats against her and the DOJ? ID also get a restraining order for the Sergeant at arms too.

a reply to: yuppa

Probably because like every else, she's not taking this seriously.

It would be hard to. This is the kind of thing that happens in other countries, not ours.

I already had my answer to this forming in my head... blown out of proportion, lawyer was probably explaining the purpose of legal intervention as preventing the "wild west" tactic of armed conflict. I was ready to tear the OP a new one. I'll even post here what I was thinking:

Really?

You do realize this is just an explanation of why the courts are used, and not a threat, right? No one is going to send the Sergeant-at-Arms over to the DoJ with guns blazing. That's why we do things here through courts, and that is precisely what the lawyer is explaining to make his point.

Then I listened to the exchange.

I seem to have this bad habit of doing that: actually looking at the evidence before I post. Call me weird, but sometimes it helps me see what's really going on and prevents me from making a totally asinine post that refutes itself before anyone else has to refute it. In this case, when I started listening, my original perception flew right out the window.

This was not just an explanation. It came across to me as someone making an argumentative threat: "Please take our side so we don't have to do this terrible thing." I base that on the lawyer's word choice and voice inflection. As a lawyer, his forte is using words and voice inflection to make a point; that's what lawyers do! We call it "arguing for a living," but it is more than just arguing... it is presenting a compelling case through word choice and voice inflection. It's what a lawyer does.

When I drove a truck, I performed my job using the tools of my trade: safe driving practices, time management, attention to road and traffic conditions. That was my forte. It's what I did, and I was good at it. This lawyer knows what he just said. He presented exactly the impression he wanted to present. That is his forte.

Were the "Master Lush"... excuse me, "Master Legislator"... to make a similar statement, I would likely laugh it off. We all know Pelosi regularly makes dedicated attempts to drown herself in an abundance of alcoholic beverages (probably to stave off the effects of even worse senility). The fact that this was an attorney saying this makes it more troubling. Make no mistake, this was a thinly-veiled threat... perhaps an impotent threat, perhaps an empty threat, but a threat nonetheless. It is actually reminiscent of discussions I have had with TDS-infected people... so assured that they must be allowed to somehow remove the evil orange one that law and order become just first-choice actions instead of only-choice actions. The end justifies any means necessary.

I hope this was just bluster born of TDS. If not, things could get serious. It is becoming obvious to TPTB that Trump is not going anywhere. The scramble for political dirt didn't work. The impeachment attempts only opened up their own legal hell. The people are no longer listening to their lies. Their very freedom (perhaps their very lives if the allegations in this thread are even fractionally true) are on the line. Where is their limit?

I don't know. I only hope they have a limit. This lawyer doesn't think so, though.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
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.

It would be over quick. There are many members who are former military and know how to fight. There are many members who are complete pacifists and would turtle. There are many who would fight but don't know how and would get their butts kicked. The rest would surrender quickly and it would take maybe five minutes, giving the benefit of the doubt to some of the Dems that might actually resist.

Then we have to figure out how to deal with the idiots that elected the career, corrupt politicians so they don't do that anymore. I'd pay to see that too.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Make no mistake, this was a thinly-veiled threat... perhaps an impotent threat, perhaps an empty threat, but a threat nonetheless.

I didn't take it that way. I took it as the lawyer arguing the point to absurdity, when queried by the judge: besides the court's judicial oversight, does Congress have any other legal means, that this court should not only rule that Congress has a right to access to the grand jury documents in question, but also that this court should compel the DOJ to comply.

It is absurd to think the Sergeant of Arms would use physical force or weapons to seize documents if the DOJ refuses to comply with a ruling of congressional right to access. However, the idea that the DOJ would refuse to turn over documents to Congress, even though a court ruled that Congress has the legal right to access those documents, without an order compelling the DOJ to allow that access.

This just gets better and better. I love it! Never been a more 'interesting time' in politics in my lifetime. It's too bad so much time, money, and civility is being squandered, but whatever... better than paying to see the crap coming out of Hollywood anymore.

Keep going dems, you're almost there, just a little more. Just a little more.

Snipped for relevant points

originally posted by: TheRedneckYou do realize this is just an explanation of why the courts are used, and not a threat, right? No one is going to send the Sergeant-at-Arms over to the DoJ with guns blazing. That's why we do things here through courts, and that is precisely what the lawyer is explaining to make his point.Then I listened to the exchange.

This was not just an explanation. It came across to me as someone making an argumentative threat: "Please take our side so we don't have to do this terrible thing." I base that on the lawyer's word choice and voice inflection. As a lawyer, his forte is using words and voice inflection to make a point; that's what lawyers do! We call it "arguing for a living," but it is more than just arguing... it is presenting a compelling case through word choice and voice inflection. It's what a lawyer does.

This lawyer knows what he just said. He presented exactly the impression he wanted to present. That is his forte.

The fact that this was an attorney saying this makes it more troubling. Make no mistake, this was a thinly-veiled threat... perhaps an impotent threat, perhaps an empty threat, but a threat nonetheless. It is actually reminiscent of discussions I have had with TDS-infected people... so assured that they must be allowed to somehow remove the evil orange one that law and order become just first-choice actions instead of only-choice actions. The end justifies any means necessary.

Good observation. Your statement about the lawyer choosing his words carefully is what makes the difference between a good lawyer and a great lawyer. That doesn't mean they are in the right, but it does make their intent very clear if you take the time to analyze it like you did.

How wonderful would that be; for a minority of Democrats in congress to order an armed conflict with a government agency.


But it will never happen; that talk is just red meat for the militant wing of the Democratic party. They need to be prepared to just like the rest of us.

Well...the lawyer is technically correct. The POTUS is, by the Constitution, the Commander in Chief of all armed forced. That is all six branches of the military (thanks Space Force), every organized militia that has been federalized, every disorganized militia that self-activates (Oath Keepers, 3%, etc) and every other paramilitary organization (that is any group that trains in armed tactics and has ranks) which oddly enough includes parts of the SCA and all federal, state and local law enforcement.

So the POTUS is effectively in command of every cop, soldier, militiamen and even geeks that beat each other with rattan sticks. Basically anyone that can pick up a weapon except for exactly two people...Sargent of Arms of the House and Sargent of Arms of the Senate. And only the Sargent of Arms of the Senate has the legal ability to arrest the POTUS and only if ordered to do so by the Senate. The counterpart in the House does not have that ability.

So the House could order theirs to retrieve documents, but a shootout would be akin to me doing it. Outgunned is outgunned. And it would take a felony action to get to lethal force options. So no. The lawyer is part wrong as well.

a reply to: HalWesten

But we'd have to figure out what to call it.

Maybe we could call it...

GRAND THEFT SMACKDOWN 2020!!
SCARFACE PELOSI vs. MOSCOW MITCH
- TAXPAYER'S REVENGE -

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Had the lawyer not stressed the use of gunplay to retrieve the documents, I would agree with you. That would have been implied, perhaps (I suppose based on the listener) in any case. When he stated use of gunplay... twice... that is where my opinion started shifting toward the OP.

It was indeed arguing to absurdity, and it was an absurd argument in the first place. That's my point. Bringing up the absurd is not a legitimate argument... it is hyperbole.

The judge's question was not about whether or not gunplay could be used. It was about legal means available to the House to retrieve those documents outside of a court order. The judge was looking for a legitimate argument that a court order to produce them would be consistent with other legal principles. She actually stated that the cases the lawyer had presented as precedent to a favorable ruling were not really applicable as they did not extend to Grand Jury documents. This is common in a courtroom; judges will typically give both sides ample opportunity to show additional supporting theories when their original theories are deemed inadequate.

The use of gunplay is certainly not a legal means to retrieve anything from another branch of government.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Oh, from your fingers to Vince McMahon's ears!

Good thing I got the WWE Network... can't wait!

TheRedneck

If ever there was a call for martial law, this event sounds it loud and clear.

The House in open rebellion threatening to do violence in the other branches of government to achieve their ends.
Effectively, the JUDICIARY has been threatened with use of DEADLY FORCE against the EXECUTIVE BRANCH if they (Judges) don't decide in favor of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

It is time to put down this insurrection in an expedient manner using whatever means necessary. IMO

ganjoa

MSM and Democrats are becoming more irrational by the week.

The Pelosi House wants to re-open and re-start their impeachment hearings, because the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Pentagon have decided not to release any more e-mails to investigators.

originally posted by: 727Sky
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..

If there is any truth that Iran has sleeper cells in the US kind of wants me to see their leadership destroyed if even one is activated.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: HalWesten

But we'd have to figure out what to call it.

Maybe we could call it...

GRAND THEFT SMACKDOWN 2020!!
SCARFACE PELOSI vs. MOSCOW MITCH
- TAXPAYER'S REVENGE -

Say hello to my (hic) little friend!!! (give me another Vodka, now!)

originally posted by: ganjoa
If ever there was a call for martial law, this event sounds it loud and clear.

The House in open rebellion threatening to do violence in the other branches of government to achieve their ends.
Effectively, the JUDICIARY has been threatened with use of DEADLY FORCE against the EXECUTIVE BRANCH if they (Judges) don't decide in favor of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

It is time to put down this insurrection in an expedient manner using whatever means necessary. IMO

ganjoa

I think that's a bit dramatic at this stage. Let them (Dems) hang themselves with their words and actions, then we can sweep up the debris.

All I notice is the finger pointing going on since election day 2016, and a bunch of nobody's becoming somebody's in the media, nothing featuring heroic feats.
All kinds of "people worthy" stuff is sitting collecting dust, and we got marsupials feeding us red herring?

She was Russian to impeach- now she's Stalin.

a reply to: 727Sky

Maybe she needs to quit drinking WITH her meds.