The real COUP attempt - arrest Pelosi

She is busted by the military trying to effect a coup

January 9, 2021

PELOSI’S EFFORTS TO INSERT HERSELF INTO THE MILITARY CHAIN OF COMMAND ARE THEMSELVES SEDITIOUS, and the military is unhappy:

Ms. Pelosi also said she had spoken with Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about “preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes.” . . .

But some Defense Department officials have privately expressed anger that political leaders seemed to be trying to get the Pentagon to do the work of Congress and Cabinet secretaries, who have legal options to remove a president.

Mr. Trump, they noted, is still the commander in chief, and unless he is removed, the military is bound to follow his lawful orders. While military officials can refuse to carry out orders they view as illegal, they cannot proactively remove the president from the chain of command. That would be a military coup, these officials said.

Trying to incite a military coup is sedition.

ARREST PELOSI

AMEN!! She thinks the rules don't apply to her. Tell her go get another haircut while you're at it. I'm not Pro Trump or Pro Biden. But I am anti Pelosi. Can't stand her.

A Coup of Pelosi’s Own

The House Speaker publicizes her nuclear option to protect the world from Trump.

By The Editorial Board
Jan. 8, 2021 6:32 pm ET


We scoured the U.S. Constitution Friday afternoon and it’s definitely not there: the provision allowing the Speaker of the House of Representatives to intervene in the military chain of command to protect the world from President Trump.

Mrs. Pelosi told her Democratic colleagues that she spoke Friday morning to Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike.” She posted the “Dear colleague” letter on her website to make sure the world got the message. A spokesman for Gen. Milley told reporters the chairman “answered her questions.”

The press and left-wing Twitter (we repeat ourselves) love the idea of the Speaker inserting herself into the chain of command as a rebuke to an erratic President. But it’s an abuse of her own power, which is limited to leading the legislative branch unless both the President and Vice President are incapacitated or removed from office. In that case she is third in line for the Presidency.

But in the meantime she has no business telling the Joint Chiefs not to follow the President’s orders. Gen. Milley hardly needs the lecture, as he has been dealing with Mr. Trump for 15 months and isn’t about to indulge an unlawful order, much less an effort to launch nuclear weapons.

Mrs. Pelosi’s call to Gen. Milley is itself a violation of the separation of powers by seeking to inject herself into an executive-branch military decision. She can offer advice all she wants, but this call at this time has the sound of an order. It might even be construed by some as its own little coup—conniving with the military to relieve of command the person who remains the elected President.

What if an adversary leaps on the news and decides this is the moment to stage some military action when the U.S. is consumed with internal conflict? Does Gen. Milley now have to consult with the Speaker before he acts in America’s defense? How anyone thinks her intervention would restore good constitutional order to government or some modicum of sanity to politics is a mystery.

Mr. Trump failed his constitutional test on Wednesday. But Mrs. Pelosi showed awful judgment with her grandstanding over the nuclear launch codes. Late Friday she announced that she’s also revving up the impeachment machinery. So much for calming political tempers.

you have to wonder at this point what will happen when they swear in Biden. It should be done in privately because you know both sides are going to stir up so much shit it will be a mockery. Pelosi is throwing her newspaper onto the fire also and the saddest part is innocent people will be caught in the crossfire.

ARREST PELOSI !!!

New: Gen Milley furious at Pelosi after her nuclear codes action. Called the act "disastrous"

Last time I checked, we had a little thing called the War Powers Resolution. Congress is well within its rights to try to stop a president from engaging in unauthorized acts of war. At this point, you guys are just flailing around, making yourselves look silly.

Last time I checked, we had a little thing called the War Powers Resolution. Congress is well within its rights to try to stop a president from engaging in unauthorized acts of war. At this point, you guys are just flailing around, making yourselves look silly. Originally Posted by El-mo

There is only ONE Commander in Chief - the President
Pelosi trying to incite a military coup is sedition.

What are these fantasy “acts of war” the President is(n’t) engaged in?

There is only ONE Commander in Chief - the President
Pelosi trying to incite a military coup is sedition. Originally Posted by berryberry

He is 100% right. In the constitution it states only Congress has the ability to declare war. G.W. Bush found a work around to that but it certainly doesn't give Trump unilateral control of the military

"Dear Penthouse" LMAO!!

Last time I checked, we had a little thing called the War Powers Resolution. Congress is well within its rights to try to stop a president from engaging in unauthorized acts of war. At this point, you guys are just flailing around, making yourselves look silly. Originally Posted by El-mo

Apparently, this post was worthy of an in fraction. So much for the tolerant right.

Apparently, this post was worthy of an in fraction. So much for the tolerant right. Originally Posted by El-mo

It seems apparent that DR mod is a Trump supporter
I'll let you know how many points I get for that statement. if I don't get banned

He is 100% right. In the constitution it states only Congress has the ability to declare war. G.W. Bush found a work around to that but it certainly doesn't give Trump unilateral control of the military Originally Posted by Chaz55

Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Commander in Chief clause, states that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

The questions of whether and to what extent the President has the authority to use the military absent a Congressional declaration of war have proven to be sources of conflict and debate throughout American history. Some scholars believe the Commander in Chief Clause confers expansive powers on the President, but others argue that even if that is the case, the Constitution does not define precisely the extent of those powers. These scholars tend to construe the Clause narrowly, asserting that the Founders gave the President the title to preserve civilian supremacy over the military, not to provide additional powers outside of a Congressional authorization or declaration of war.

War Powers Resolution
After the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon Administrations spent nearly a decade committing U.S. troops to Southeast Asia without Congressional approval, in 1973 Congress responded by passing the War Powers Resolution. The Resolution sought to halt the erosion of Congress's ability to participate in war-making decisions, an aim furthered by the Resolution's requirement that the President communicate to Congress the commitment of troops within 48 hours. Further, the statute requires the President to remove all troops after 60 days if Congress has not granted an extension.

Presidents have typically considered the War Powers Resolution to be unconstitutional, and so they have tended not to follow it. This unwillingness has never been challenged by another actor (congress, civilians, etc), so the Supreme Court has never up the issue. In one way, the resolution takes an unprecedented action by allowing the President to unilaterally put American troops into conflict. Although the act imposes a check on the President (by imposing a limit for the amount of time the troops can be deployed without Congressional consent), the act has not appeared to pose any practical checks on Presidential actions.

And even though the War Powers Act exists, Congress is still largely deferential toward the President with regard to military authorization. For example in 1995, regarding the sending of US troops into Bosnia, Bob Dole (the Republican Senate Majority Leader) said that President Clinton (a Democrat) had “the authority and the power under the Constitution to do what he feels should be done regardless of what Congress does.”

The mods are definitely right leaning. You can't say that a Trumpster looks silly when they do, but it's acceptable to call those members who oppose Trump "deranged (TDS)."

The gulf of tonkin resolution is what gave Johnson then Nixon the power in vietnam. Which was passed by? You guessed it congress. Other than trump's 2017 Syrian missile strike and Clinton's 1999 bombing of yugoslavia you have to go all the way back to the US-Phillipino war of 1898-03 where at least a resolution wasn't passed by congress. Maybe not a formal declaration of war but congress has always had a say. Maybe freshen up on article one section 8 of the constitution