Where is the concern/outrage regarding Pelosi's attempted coup?

[Matt]

From yesterday's WSJ Editorial:

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.

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

You really think Trump having direct access to nukes is an acceptable thing given his deranged state?

[Rate This]

From yesterday's WSJ Editorial:

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.

Ok... let’s do this slowly... wondering what sorts of precautions exist to stop a madman who is clearly divorced from
Reality and incapable of sound decision making is a reasonable thing. The Wall Street Journal is as usual full of shit.

[Matt]

The WSJ editorial is spot on. Donald Trump is the President for 10 more days. Pelosi’s direct action was one that she is not constitutionally allowed to take.

[TC Talks]

Which one of Trump's son's wrote this guest op-ed?

Her chamber was invaded due to the failure of the Pentagon. If we get down to the nitty-gritty I bet she's allowed to call them and find out why they failed to do their job.

[screen glare]

Anyone who has designs on launching nukes, or a dirty bomb terrorism attack, or a bio chemical attack, etc. against the USA - would surely want to do it while America appears weak.

If you actually believe the WSJ editorial - floating the SUBJECTIVE idea - that an inquiry Pelosi was no doubt receiving from her constituents - and passed on to the General - “has the sound of an order” - you’re grasping.

Friends - there will NEVER be a more CLEAR SIGNAL to our enemies that THIS is a good time to attack the USA - than President Donald Trump inciting the bloody coup-attempt insurrection at the capitol January 6th.
THAT is the sight and sound of USA vulnerability - and internal disarray/chaos - that spells W-E-A-K-N-E-S-S to Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, as well as to our shocked and worried NATO allies.

The President of The United States MUST be removed from power!

[craig11152]

Her chamber was invaded due to the failure of the Pentagon.

Huh? The Capital Police are overseen by the House and Senate.
Where do you drag the Pentagon in to this?
Connect those dots for me please.

[TC Talks]

Her chamber was invaded due to the failure of the Pentagon.

Huh? The Capital Police are overseen by the House and Senate.
Where do you drag the Pentagon in to this?
Connect those dots for me please.

There are six other stories related to this that get into it deeper but it's fairly clear through memos that the Pentagon went out of their way to make sure there was no protection. That should frighten just about anybody.

The Pentagon placed tight limits on the D.C. National Guard ahead of pro-Trump protests this week, trying to ensure the use of military force remained constrained, as the Guard carried out a narrow, unarmed mission requested by the city’s mayor to help handle traffic ahead of planned protests.

In memos issued Monday and Tuesday in response to a request from the D.C. mayor, the Pentagon prohibited the District’s guardsmen from receiving ammunition or riot gear, interacting with protesters unless necessary for self-defense, sharing equipment with local law enforcement, or using Guard surveillance and air assets without the defense secretary’s explicit sign-off, according to officials familiar with the orders. The limits were established because the Guard hadn’t been asked to assist with crowd or riot control.

The D.C. Guard was also told it would be allowed to deploy a quick-reaction force only as a measure of last resort, the officials said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

[screen glare]

In the world of American misogynistic men - the word often preceding “female” is “conniving”. The WSJ editorial states “...little coup-conniving with the military...”.

Nice.


Revelatory of the author’s snarky, petty, motivation. The entire editorial is a woman hater’s attempt at what-aboutism - to mitigate traitor Trump’s infamous, permanent, poisonous act of treason against the greatest democracy - The United States of America.

A woman hater getting his (or their) mental rocks off will NEVER erase nor ease the sedition burned into history by President Donald Trump.

For Shame.

[Rate This]

The WSJ editorial is spot on. Donald Trump is the President for 10 more days. Pelosi’s direct action was one that she is not constitutionally allowed to take.

It says something about nukes in the constitution? Is that the 29th amendment?

[craig11152]

The Pentagon placed tight limits on the D.C. National Guard ahead of pro-Trump protests this week, trying to ensure the use of military force remained constrained, as the Guard carried out a narrow, unarmed mission requested by the city’s mayor to help handle traffic ahead of planned protests.

In memos issued Monday and Tuesday in response to a request from the D.C. mayor, the Pentagon prohibited the District’s guardsmen from receiving ammunition or riot gear, interacting with protesters unless necessary for self-defense, sharing equipment with local law enforcement, or using Guard surveillance and air assets without the defense secretary’s explicit sign-off, according to officials familiar with the orders. The limits were established because the Guard hadn’t been asked to assist with crowd or riot control.

The D.C. Guard was also told it would be allowed to deploy a quick-reaction force only as a measure of last resort, the officials said.

It seems to me "the Pentagon" was respecting the request of the democratic (black female) mayor.

[TC Talks]

The Pentagon placed tight limits on the D.C. National Guard ahead of pro-Trump protests this week, trying to ensure the use of military force remained constrained, as the Guard carried out a narrow, unarmed mission requested by the city’s mayor to help handle traffic ahead of planned protests.

In memos issued Monday and Tuesday in response to a request from the D.C. mayor, the Pentagon prohibited the District’s guardsmen from receiving ammunition or riot gear, interacting with protesters unless necessary for self-defense, sharing equipment with local law enforcement, or using Guard surveillance and air assets without the defense secretary’s explicit sign-off, according to officials familiar with the orders. The limits were established because the Guard hadn’t been asked to assist with crowd or riot control.

The D.C. Guard was also told it would be allowed to deploy a quick-reaction force only as a measure of last resort, the officials said.

It seems to me "the Pentagon" was respecting the request of the democratic (black female) mayor.

They have never done this before now. Again, lots written about this.

[Matt]

The WSJ editorial is spot on. Donald Trump is the President for 10 more days. Pelosi’s direct action was one that she is not constitutionally allowed to take.

It says something about nukes in the constitution? Is that the 29th amendment?

The President is the Commander in Chief as stated in the Constitution. If you don't know what that means, the AA school system is in poor shape.

[screen glare]

Huh?
“...(black female) mayor.”

Unnecessarily wordy, wouldn’t you say, craig11152?

[Matt]

Huh?
“...(black female) mayor.”

Unnecessarily wordy, wouldn’t you say, craig11152?

No one has ever accused you of being particularly bright, but this attack is certainly interesting coming right off your rant finding sexism where it doesn't exist.