Jan. 6th, The Law, and Nancy Pelosi's Dereliction of Duty

Just asking you to do what you said you would do.
It does seem that this is not very likely to occur.
There, Nancy Pelosi declares an emergency. Now do what you demanded of me, show me where I called you a libtard. I can not believe you are a low life liar, but without you quoting the comment, you are exactly that.
House manual
Law
Precendent
 
troll on maryann
Insults! You don’t want to discuss the issue.

Fact is the Capitol Board has authority to declare an emergency.

Fact is that the first time the Capitol Board took any request to leadership (which includes the majority leader) they approved it.
 
There, Nancy Pelosi declares an emergency. Now do what you demanded of me, show me where I called you a libtard. I can not believe you are a low life liar, but without you quoting the comment, you are exactly that.
House manual
Law
Precendent
Your links prove you are incorrect.
 
Then you should STOP commenting on this thread right fucking NOW: I've highlighted those portions of the quote that prove that I do know what I'm talking about.

As such, the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard is subordinate solely to the President of the United States. This authority to activate the D.C. National Guard has been delegated, by the President, to the Secretary of Defense and further delegated to the Secretary of the Army. The D.C. National Guard is the only National Guard unit, out of all of the 54 states and territories, which reports only to the President.

Activate and deploy are two different actions.....like I said, you don't know what you're talking about..... :auiqs.jpg:

Trump had no COTUS authority to deploy troops in DC...................period.

Prez can not deploy troops in DC, only SECDEF.

Why is it you comment on things you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about?
:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
 
Insults! You don’t want to discuss the issue.
Victimhood, you poor baby. Democrats accuse others of victimhood while playing the victim card.

maryann, you are a hypocrite

And like I said, go back, read the comments you cherry picked one out of, and that is your answer.
 
Victimhood, you poor baby. Democrats accuse others of victimhood while playing the victim card.

maryann, you are a hypocrite

And like I said, go back, read the comments you cherry picked one out of, and that is your answer.
You claimed that you could cite law to back up your statements but that was not true.
 
you did not follow them and read them
No, you didnt read them. If you had, you wouldn’t have claimed falsely that Pelosi is the person responsible for declaring an emergency.

your own documents say that’s false.
 
Who, under law and precedent declares an emergency so the the Emergency Plan to Protect the House is in effect.

Include the precedent and law from the appropriate .gov site.

I wish to have an educated discussion. I like how we are doing this now. I find it intelluctually stimulating. Even if my soelling sucks.

What you highlighted is not an emergency plan. It's for when there are unexpected emergencies. That can be declared by the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader or the Capitol Police Board.
 
All Pelosi had to do, is what the House Rules, the Law, and Precedents state.

We are not bitching. We quote the laws.

In some cases, you're quoting the law as it is now, not what it was then. Such as the authority of the CPB's chief of police to call up the guard. That role did not have that authority on J6. So if you're gonna quote the law, quote the right law.
 
All Pelosi had to do, is what the House Rules, the Law, and Precedents state.

We are not bitching. We quote the laws.
So according to MAGARATS.. if Pelosi had only done certain things … THEY… the MAGARATS would not have been able to attack the Capitol?

That’s like a bank robber bitching that he only robbed the bank because the security wasn’t tight enough

We listen to what these people say because… why?
 
In some cases, you're quoting the law as it is now, not what it was then.
Exactly. He’s so all over the place (intentionally) that it’s hard to figure out what he’s actually saying

That’s a strategy
 
Exactly. He’s so all over the place (intentionally) that it’s hard to figure out what he’s actually saying

That’s a strategy
And your daughter in law’s college degree is what?
 
In some cases, you're quoting the law as it is now, not what it was then. Such as the authority of the CPB's chief of police to call up the guard. That role did not have that authority on J6. So if you're gonna quote the law, quote the right law.
Actually, if you read the law i am quoting is says 2018, not current.

I am getting to it. There are over 40 titles to sift through

Over 10 volumes of presedents

Jefferson's manual ( house rules) will be easy.
 
That (or something similar)was said to Trump’s SecDef who was THE ONLY PERSON who could have made it happen.
Only when requests for assistance come in the COC.

Horse shit. That attack on the Capitol had exactly zero to do with Pelosi.
Funny how intel was saying there was a probability of violence that day and it was ignored by both houses.

But hey. On Jan 6 EVERYONE mentioned including Pelosi was SCREAMING for support and it was slow in coming because Trump wasn’t asking for it. In fact Trump NEVER ASKED FOR IT on Jan 6.
Yeah...kinda funny.......first no need to lie..............you know damn well Trump did what He was required to do by authorizing troops to be available to DOD COC. Trump wasn't in the COC at that point. I seriously think Pelosi and the rest of the DJT fan club wanted things to happen that day to attempt to provide grounds for an impeachment and conviction to stop Him from ever running again. I'm pretty sure they were hoping for a violent riot with police but never figured they'd breach the capitol building. That's what all the screaming was about....they f**ked up.
And your comment about Trump never asking for it Jan 6 is an absolute lie............it wasn't His call at that point, and you know it.

And HE ignored it. Bowser asked for and got a small number of NG to help with traffic issues
Yeah, well before J6.
That only has to do with a request for support. It is in no way a refusal of support. Had Trump actually ORDERED NG and followed up on that order his SecDef would have made it happen
Again, knock of with the lies.....
 
A distraction in this instance by YOU
You used her as an example of why taxpayers have to pay her student loans off instead of her

When I asked you what her degree was you ran away

Are you ashamed to say it?
 
You used her as an example of why taxpayers have to pay her student loans off instead of her

When I asked you what her degree was you ran away

Are you ashamed to say it?
Stop deflecting
 
Only when requests for assistance come in the COC.


Funny how intel was saying there was a probability of violence that day and it was ignored by both houses.


Yeah...kinda funny.......first no need to lie..............you know damn well Trump did what He was required to do by authorizing troops to be available to DOD COC. Trump wasn't in the COC at that point. I seriously think Pelosi and the rest of the DJT fan club wanted things to happen that day to attempt to provide grounds for an impeachment and conviction to stop Him from ever running again. I'm pretty sure they were hoping for a violent riot with police but never figured they'd breach the capitol building. That's what all the screaming was about....they f**ked up.
And your comment about Trump never asking for it Jan 6 is an absolute lie............it wasn't His call at that point, and you know it.


Yeah, well before J6.

Again, knock of with the lies.....
Ahhh the Gish Gallup. Focus on one claim at a time jackass

And Trump is ALWAYS in the COC.

If you MAGArats are whining that not enough was done to stop what YOU did that day… bitch at Trump’s SecDef.

It was on HIM to order out the NG
 
Funny how intel was saying there was a probability of violence that day and it was ignored by both houses.
Intelligence estimates weren’t updated and the threat of violence was thought to be rather low. The violent rhetoric noted online was felt to be aspirational. If you follow right wing internet chatter, they constantly talk about violence but it doesn’t occur.
 

Forum List

Back
Top