So When Do REPUBS IMPEACH BIDEN?

Too long, obviously.

Doesn't matter.

"They" would look like fools if the Guard saved the day, and overanxious if nothing happened and the Guard packed up and went home.

Can't read the law...?

'Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."​

"Whenever the President considers..." means the call is made by the President.

Red Herring Alert!

None of this matters. Trump had the power he needed and didn't act.

I quoted the law. It hasn't been ruled unconstitutional.

 

No, when the President determines they have an inadequate plan...

 

1. J6 is the "red herring".
2. Biden will not be impeached.

 

d

You might note Trump did not send the Guard. He wanted the Democrats and media to ask for them.

 

The President's job is to determine if they have an adequate plan.

 

1/6 was a disgrace created by disreputable people behaving badly. Are you prepared to condemn the rioters?

How about the rioters in Seattle and Portland? Do you condemn them?

Based on what we know now, probably not.

 

All of the video released immediately. The cover-up should end with full disclosure.

Everyone who incites criminal violence should be denounced.

“When federal officials announced, on Oct. 8, 2020, that they had foiled a plot by militant extremists to kidnap Michigan’s governor, it was quickly hailed as one of the most important domestic terrorism prosecutions in a generation. They didn't mention FBI agent Jayson Chambers by name, but those who had worked the case knew that his role helping to run a central informant had been crucial.
There was, however, something about Chambers that some colleagues might not have known: 18 months earlier, he’d incorporated a private security firm and had spent much of 2019 trying to drum up business — in part by touting his FBI casework. …

A continuing BuzzFeed News investigation reveals new information about how Chambers' business, along with an array of issues involving other FBI agents and informants, has bedeviled the prosecution. Those issues may well affect the course of the trial. But beyond the integrity of the case, the problems are serious and widespread enough to call into question tactics the FBI has relied on for decades — and to test the public’s trust in the bureau overall.
BUZZFEED NEWS, The FBI Investigation Into The Alleged Plot To Kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer Has Gotten Very Complicated, The case seemed like a lock — until an informant and one FBI agent were charged with crimes, another was accused of perjury, and a third was found promoting a private security firm. And that wasn’t all. , By Jessica Garrison and Ken Bensinger, December 16, 2021.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kenbensinger/fbi-michigan-kidnap-whitmery

Happy Thanksgiving!

 

It wasnt "impracticable". Locals cleared the Capitol by themselves.

 

The above were the least of the prosecutions problems. The plot to kidnap the governor was the informers plot, not those charged. Those charge had little interest in carrying out the plot and it was instead the informers who had to push the plan along.

 

You were not there... this guy was.... Let someone who was there explain it to you….

https://rumble.com/v19ht06-kash-the...d-to-trump-offering-20000-national-guard.html

 

You were not in the meeting... these people were...
Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Here is yet another verification of the other person in that meeting when Trump authorized the guard.... Gen. Milley... and Chris Miller from the DoD IG report on Jan 6.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21113253-dod-ig-jan-6
page 31

 

Can you explain why they needed Pelosi's OK on the house floor on January 6... but strangely did not need it the days before?

 

Who would know better than a former speaker of the house of the duties of a speaker?

Again, a former speaker, I was deeply offended that anybody would do what they did on the Capitol grounds. But as a former speaker, I was also really offended that the current speaker, Pelosi, failed so totally in her job, which was to make sure this didn’t happen. This is a totally nutty environment that we’re currently operating in, and historians will look back on it as a period that’s kind of mildly insane.
Well, I think she’s the person who is most responsible for what happened. It was her job to ensure that there was adequate police and if they didn’t have adequate police it was her job to ensure that the National Guard was there. So a lot of this I think is a dance by the Democrats who don’t want us to look very closely at what actually happened. If you’ll notice, the political committee they have created is, in fact, only looking at political things. They are not looking at the various ringleaders who have not been arrested. They are not at a lot of the details about whether or not the FBI was as involved as provocateurs.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/newt-gi...on-who-is-most-responsible-for-what-happened/

 

Again, more people in the know... which you are not

https://republicans-cha.house.gov/s...1 Letter to Speaker Pelosi re January 6th.pdf

 

Yes, historically, insurrections are often organized and set in motion by secret police/spy agencies.

 

Yes, the new House should immediately crank up real full due process J6 hearings and most of the cross examination should be conducted by experienced prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers.

 

We should all agree on this principle.

We would be ill-advised to think d, kidnapping, harming or even murdering pols representing our political opponents is going to end well.

As for the Whitmer kidnapping story... I didn't pay much attention. There are always types who want to do things like kidnap pols. I figured the "news" story getting as much coverage as it did was more about media promoting conflict as a way of keeping people tuned in. I'd like to know how the story developed.

It reminds me of the Ferguson riots a few years ago. After days of media hype, guys like Al Sharpton showing up and stirring the pot, the riots in Ferguson were confined to a few blocks in front of the housing project some idiots plopped down in a suburb of family homes.

Summer head drove residents out of the sweatboxes and into the streets. We know what happens then--people get themselves into trouble because they have nothing to do. Even so, the community didn't get up in arms about it.

You'd have thought from the news reports, from Fox News to MSNBC, that Hell had opened up in Ferguson. CBC News (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) did a long interview with a guy who was pulling out of his driveway one block from Main Street where the rioting was taking place. The guy said he had drive way around police containment to get to his two jobs. Behind the guy. the tv camera took in a well-manicured middle-class black community. The media all jumped on the bandwagon. Hype.

You, too.

 

The idea would have been protecting the Capitol from a riot, not ending one.

 

I prefer the law itself and this...

Invoking the Insurrection Act temporarily suspends the Posse Comitatus rule and allows the president to deploy the military to assist civilian authorities with law enforcement. That might involve soldiers doing anything from enforcing a federal court order to suppressing an uprising against the government. Of course, not every domestic use of the military involves law enforcement activity. Other laws, such as the Stafford Act, allow the military to be used to respond to natural disasters, public health crises, and other similar events without waiving the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act.

In theory, the Insurrection Act should be used only in a crisis that is truly beyond the capacity of civilian authorities to manage. However, the Insurrection Act fails to adequately define or limit when it may be used and instead gives the president significant power to decide when and where to deploy U.S. military forces domestically.​

And...

Nothing in the text of the Insurrection Act defines “insurrection,” “rebellion,” “domestic violence,” or any of the other key terms used in setting forth the prerequisites for deployment. Absent statutory guidance, the Supreme Court decided early on that this question is for the president alone to decide. In the 1827 case Martin v. Mott, the Court ruled that “the authority to decide whether [an exigency requiring the militia to be called out] has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and . . . his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.”

However, while this precedent might prevent judges from second-guessing whether the president is allowed to invoke the Insurrection Act in response to a given situation, the Supreme Court clarified in Sterling v. Constantin (1932) that courts may still review the lawfulness of the military’s actions once deployed. In other words, federal troops are not free to violate other laws or trample on constitutional rights just because the president has invoked the Insurrection Act.​

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained

 

This is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the President could have used the Insurrection Act.

 

What does Pelosi's actions have to do with the President invoking the Insurrection Act?

 

All irrelevant as to whether or not the President could have invoked the Insurrection Act.

 

Are you looking at Pelosi now instead of Trump? Have you agreed Trump could have used the Insurrection Act?

 

Where did you get that inane idea. The President is not a governor of Washington DC he had no role in the management of the city the mayor reports directly to CONGRESS.

Try again when did the law enforcement in DC or the Capital tell Trump they did not have adequate forces to enforce the law on Jan 6.

How long is it supposed to take when they have been told not to send them.

Of course it does they are the ones with the JURISDICTION.

MSM was feeding the frenzy too along with the Dems. TRUMP is going to call in the military and refuse to leave office!!!!!

When was he told a rebellion was in process and when did the DC and Capital Hill police state it was "impractical" for them to enforce the law. They DID enforce the law that day you know.

Dodge alert

Try again

You are denying the MSM and the Dems were crying Trump would never leave office and would call out the military to stay in power? You are denying Milley was trying to tell the military NOT to deploy if Trump ordered it because it would be a sign of his military coup and take over?

You don't get to ignore what happened.

It was not for him to act nothing before Jan 6 came under the insurrection law and had he attempted to send the military into DC without the request of the proper law enforcement officials he would have been branded a FACIST DICTATOR starting a military coup which would have caused a constitutional crisis like we have NEVER SEEN. If would have been irresponsible for him to take over the city and the capital and place them under HIS control. The outrage we would have heard from the MSM and the Dems and the Mayor and I can well imagine you would have been DEFEANING. Are you REALLY denying that?

Now apply it to the circumstance.

 

The Insurrection Act charges him with just that job in the section we've been discussing.

The President determines, he doesn't ask.

'Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."​

The rest of your post is of no consequence.