It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
20
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: 727Sky

Maybe she needs to quit drinking WITH her meds.



For her type, it's *all* medicinal.




posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 03:14 PM
link   
This guy is clueless and Pelosi knows she can't send the house Sargent of arms to the DOJ. It's stupid to even suggest it the house Sargent of arms only has jurisdiction within the house. He enforces house rules just the same as the senate Sargent if arms enforce senate rules within their halls. If the house got a court order they would return to that judge for enforcement. The judge would have the ability to send US marshalls to retrieve the files.

Unfortunately getting a court to agree that Congress has the right to see grand jury testimony is very close to zero. Judges would not want anyone to access grand jury information directly it violates those rules.
edit on 1/4/20 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
This guy is clueless and Pelosi know she can't send the house Sargent of arms to the DOJ. Its stupid to even suggest it the house Sargent of arms only has jurisdiction withing the house. He enforces house rules just the same as the senate sargent if arms enforces senate rules within their halls. If the house got a court order they would return to that judge for enforcement. The judge would have the ability to send US marshalls to retrieve the files.

Unfortunately getting a court to to agree that congress has the rights to see grand jury testimony is very close to zero. Judges would not want anyone to access grand jury information directly it violates those rules.


Didn't you get the memo....she has the gavel, she can do anything now because of the power of the gavel. She believes it is Thor's hammer.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: dragonridr
This guy is clueless and Pelosi know she can't send the house Sargent of arms to the DOJ. Its stupid to even suggest it the house Sargent of arms only has jurisdiction withing the house. He enforces house rules just the same as the senate sargent if arms enforces senate rules within their halls. If the house got a court order they would return to that judge for enforcement. The judge would have the ability to send US marshalls to retrieve the files.

Unfortunately getting a court to to agree that congress has the rights to see grand jury testimony is very close to zero. Judges would not want anyone to access grand jury information directly it violates those rules.


Didn't you get the memo....she has the gavel, she can do anything now because of the power of the gavel. She believes it is Thor's hammer.


She has even more power because, as everyone knows, the Russians stole the elections from the Chinese!



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: 727Sky

Maybe she needs to quit drinking WITH her meds.



For her type, it's *all* medicinal.


Early to middle stages of dementia is what Pelosi looks like to me.



posted on Jan, 6 2020 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: HalWesten

Absolutely.
Over dramatazation.
Yes things will simply run their course.
But this is the Mud Pit so isn't excess drama the expected - nay, anticipated response?

ganjoa



posted on Jan, 7 2020 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ganjoa

The FBI could dust off their Tommy Guns...



posted on Jan, 7 2020 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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


I am glad you listened first before you started tearing me a new one as it might be hard to find anyplace not well used !! haha ... Like you I thought the article was blown out of proportion until I listened to the exchange ... Like I said in the opening statement I saw no evidence where Polosi directed or was involved unless she told him, "go down there and get what I want ."

But... I took the lawyer's statement as a possible veiled threat in a court of law..



posted on Jan, 7 2020 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

What's difference between Pelosi and Epstein?

Epstein didn't hang himself.




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join