NASTY Pelosi

[Mongo59]

Kind of like debating which is worse: explosion or implosion...

 

[actaeon277]

Rep. Pelosi tried to get FB and Twitter to remove a Pres. Trump video of her ripping the document after people are recognized.
She argued it was fake news, cause she didn't rip the document then.

 

[KLB]

Kind of like debating which is worse: explosion or implosion...

There's no debate. Explosion is much messier.

 

[2A_Tom]

 

[2A_Tom]

 

[Mgderf]

"You must spread some rep around..."

 

[JAL]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to JAL again.

Attempted max rep. Not just for this post, but for reliably cogent legal analysis without all the moralizing 'We're Better Than That©' [STRIKE]crap[/STRIKE] clutter

I'm not certain what this is supposed to mean. ???

To clarify:
I'd have called out anyone conducting that kind of behavior, especially on the House or Senate Floor. The rules for conduct in both chambers are very strict and are generally observed. Pelosi's childishly petulant act goes beyond a blatant violation of House Rules. As the official copy of the speech text, one could argue she destroyed an Official Government Document although I believe that would be a real stretch of the statute. I believe one Congressman was planning to make a referral to the DoJ. Whether he did or not I don't know but would expect it to be quietly accepted and disposed of with no action.

It was, however, a blatant act of Malfeasance in Office and the general public is undoubtedly unaware of this. She had the Ministerial Duty, as Speaker of the House, to enter that document into the official House Record. That is why President Trump gave it to her, and another to the VP (as President of the Senate) for its official record. A Ministerial Duty is a required one the office holder is legally bound to carry out. It cannot be abrogated or ignored. There is no discretionary wiggle room. A Congressman with standing before the courts could have gone to the DC District Court with a petition for a Writ of Mandamus to force her to put an official copy of the speech into the House Record. Whether the court would get entangled in it is another matter, but it would have the power and authority to issue said Writ, her failing which would be Contempt of Court. That adds to the egregiousness of her act; she had no intention of carrying out a legally binding duty. The remedy taken was a Republican Congressman quietly getting another from the White House and entering it into the record himself - although I'd have likely gone for the Writ of Mandamus were I a sitting Congressman.

As an Officer of the United States I had Discretionary Duties and Ministerial Duties. In the military, failing Ministerial Duties was the military equivalent of Malfeasance, called Dereliction of Duty, a punitive crime under Art. 92, UCMJ. If I seem to be outraged at her behavior, I am, and I believe quite justifiably in light of her blatant and very public Malfeasance in Office. Had I done anything similar, I'd have been asked very poignantly why I shouldn't be charged with Dereliction of Duty and court-martialed, to which there would have been no acceptable answer in justification, mitigation or extenuation.

John

 

[Trapper Jim]

I'm not certain what this is supposed to mean. ???

To clarify:
I'd have called out anyone conducting that kind of behavior, especially on the House or Senate Floor. The rules for conduct in both chambers are very strict and are generally observed. Pelosi's childishly petulant act goes beyond a blatant violation of House Rules. As the official copy of the speech text, one could argue she destroyed an Official Government Document although I believe that would be a real stretch of the statute. I believe one Congressman was planning to make a referral to the DoJ. Whether he did or not I don't know but would expect it to be quietly accepted and disposed of with no action.

It was, however, a blatant act of Malfeasance in Office and the general public is undoubtedly unaware of this. She had the Ministerial Duty, as Speaker of the House, to enter that document into the official House Record. That is why President Trump gave it to her, and another to the VP (as President of the Senate) for its official record. A Ministerial Duty is a required one the office holder is legally bound to carry out. It cannot be abrogated or ignored. There is no discretionary wiggle room. A Congressman with standing before the courts could have gone to the DC District Court with a petition for a Writ of Mandamus to force her to put an official copy of the speech into the House Record. Whether the court would get entangled in it is another matter, but it would have the power and authority to issue said Writ, her failing which would be Contempt of Court. That adds to the egregiousness of her act; she had no intention of carrying out a legally binding duty. The remedy taken was a Republican Congressman quietly getting another from the White House and entering it into the record himself - although I'd have likely gone for the Writ of Mandamus were I a sitting Congressman.

As an Officer of the United States I had Discretionary Duties and Ministerial Duties. In the military, failing Ministerial Duties was the military equivalent of Malfeasance, called Dereliction of Duty, a punitive crime under Art. 92, UCMJ. If I seem to be outraged at her behavior, I am, and I believe quite justifiably in light of her blatant and very public Malfeasance in Office. Had I done anything similar, I'd have been asked very poignantly why I shouldn't be charged with Dereliction of Duty and court-martialed, to which there would have been no acceptable answer in justification, mitigation or extenuation.

John

I was always taught that you respected the POTUS and it’s office. The disrespect that many (mostly dems and some Republicans) have shown this admin is shameful. Whenever I hear Mr Trump or Mr Obama etc. especially by the lazy media, I cringe over the disrespect shown.

 

[actaeon277]

Well, Ms. Clinton was deemed to inappropriately handle classified material, which in the military is a SERIOUS offense.
Yet, it was deemed that she didn't have the "intention" to do anything wrong so...

 

[JAL]

Well, Ms. Clinton was deemed to inappropriately handle classified material, which in the military is a SERIOUS offense.
Yet, it was deemed that she didn't have the "intention" to do anything wrong so...

Serious is an understatement. You need to go back to who within the DoJ decided they wouldn't pursue it. I was aghast. Her claims she didn't know it was classified or what the classification markings meant was specious on its face. Anyone with a TS/SCI Clearance and SCIF access would have extensive Knife and Fork schooling on the protection of classified information up to and including that level, and all the protective markings used with their definitions. As Sec'y of State she had that level of clearance and SCIF access. Some of us had that kind of clearance and access in a previous life, have been through that Knife and Fork school, and knew her claims of ignorance were as bogus as a crate of $3 bills.

In the military - having operated a classified facility - such mishandling like she did with not just a security lapse but a clear compromise of it would have most assuredly had me reassigned to an all-expense paid holiday spa tour at the Graybar Hotel in the US Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth. Unsecured and compromised are two different things albeit unsecured is necessary for compromise. During my career I saw a couple of individuals go down in flames to the USDB for careless mishandling that resulted in compromise. There is zero forgiveness in that business for even simple negligence or any clerical error of any sort.

To bring it back to this thread, just because she got away with what she did doesn't excuse anyone else's behavior as being acceptable.

John

 

[Doug]

Oh Please.
Nancy Pelosi is a Democrat. She could rip down the American flag in the house chamber and urinate on it and claim she had no choice because Trump "triggered" her and she would be praised by every Democrat and 6 out of 7 networks for being "brave."