This is how Pelosi allows the Capitol Guardsmen to be treated! Despicable FARCE!

Bobob

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
4,185
Reaction score
1,511
Points
210
White 6 and Bobob are both full of shit. The fence and the National Guard presence are part of the political theater promoted by the Democrat Party. Bitch Pelosi didn't want the NG to be there on Jan 6th. She and her minions wanted the breach of the Capitol building (something that was planned weeks ahead of Jan 6th) to look like an invasion by Trump's peaceful protestors. She wants the fence and the guard to remain as symbols, not for protection.
If those criminals were peaceful protesters, then I am the fairy godmother.
The fence with barbed wire should sure as hell stay there to help preclude loonies from another insurrection. "Peaceful protesters," my ass.
Are you really that stupid? You believe those Trump lap dogs?
Rep. Jim Jordan's false claim that Pelosi denied a request for ...
www.washingtonpost.com › politics › 2021/03/01 › jor...

Claim: “Capitol Police requested National Guard help prior to January 6th. That request was denied by Speaker Pelosi and her Sergeant at Arms.”
Claimed by: Jim Jordan
Fact check by The Washington Post: Four Pinocchios
Ahh, the dear old Washington Post! They use a REPORTED article by the New York Times and comments made by anonymous sources to the Daily Caller to substantiate their "fact checker" rating.

Then they say:
"We will keep an eye on this issue in case new information emerges that would result in a new rating."

Sounds to me like the WP is aware of its own weak argument.
Sounds like you are looking for excuses to blame Pelosi. No, the Post quoted the Seargent at Arms, who was not appointed by Pelosi. Wouldn't matter anyway, yes?
After all, the insurrectionists were all being peaceful, right? So the Guard wasn't needed.
Perhaps you should do a little research before making asinine claims. The Sergeant-at-Arms is elected by the House members, but is controlled by the Speaker of the House.

The Sergeant-at-Arms serves at the pleasure of the House and the Speaker of the House. Nancy Pelosi controls the Sergeant-at-Arms!

This is from the House Rules:

RULE II OTHER OFFICERS AND OFFICIALS

Elections

1.
There shall be elected at the commencement of each Congress, to continue in office until their successors are chosen and qualified, a Clerk, a Sergeant-at-Arms, a Chief Administrative Officer, and a Chaplain.

Each of these officers shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and for the true and faithful ex-ercise of the duties of the office to the best of the knowledge and ability of the officer, and to keep the secrets of the House.

Each of these officers shall appoint all of the employees of the department concerned provided for by law.

The Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, and Chief Administrative Officer may be removed by the House or by the Speaker.

3.
Sergeant-at-Arms

3. (a) The Sergeant-at-Arms shall attend the House during its sittings and maintain order under the direction of the Speaker or other presiding officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms shall execute the commands of the House, and all processes issued by authority thereof, directed to the Sergeant-at-Arms by the Speaker.


..............................................
Ok, smart guy.

Posts falsely cite Pelosi as responsible for security during ...
apnews.com › fact-checking-afs:Content:9909210228

Jan 20, 2021 — CLAIM: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is in charge of overseeing ... Pelosi does not oversee day-to-day operations of the Capitol Police. ... the Architect of the Capitol, the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms, as well as ...
You're exercising your double-standard, I see. When any failure happens under Trump's watch, he is responsible; When any failure happens under Pelosi's watch, she had nothing to do with it.

Can you deny that the Speaker of the House DIRECTS the actions of the Sergeant-at-Arms?

Don't reply without a credible link, bobbyjoejimbob.
Guess what? You said that Pelosi personally dissed the idea of sending the guard
and that she was in charge of them, which was untrue. Now you come up with an excuse for Trump's personal fuck-ups, since he always had his grubby little hands in the pie and would obviously bear responsibility since he was personally involved. Stop deflecting.
I said that she gave direction to of the Sergeant-at-Arms and disagreed with his suggestion to call in the National Guard to be there on Jan 6th, thus keeping him from doing it. I said nothing of her being in charge of the National Guard.

I didn't say anything of an excuse for whatever fuck-ups Trump may have made...just that excusing Pelosi on all errors (by underlings) on her watch while attacking Trump for all errors (by underlings) on his watch exhibited a double standard.

Try again, bobbyjoejimbob! It might help if you'd pay attention to what is written here.
What you have written doesn't deserve attention. She gave no direction to the Seargent at arms and he doesn't answer to her.
When one can be dismissed (fired) by the Speaker, one does what one perceives that the Speaker desires to be done. The Speaker in this case wanted the offer of the presence of the National Guard before Jan 6th to be declined. It doesn't require a literal direction to do so, just an inference on the part of the Sergeant-at-Arms that the Speaker did not want the NG on the 6th..
Oh, now it is just an inference, yes? Pelosi wanted the Seargent at arms to resign.
You also can call for the Seargent at Arms to resign. She cannot fire that person.
Other Congress persons also called for resignation.
Listen up, numbnut. I posted a link to the full text of and quotes from the House Rules. You can search for it yourself. It's described in Rule II. Either the House can vote to remove the Sergeant-at-Arms or the Speaker of the House can remove the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Since you're a lazy troll, here it is again. If you have any semblance of adult reading comprehension, you should be able to understand it.


View attachment 464054

View attachment 464055

God help you if you can't understand that!
You are correct, but what is the relevance? You are a good reader, yes? You appear to be making something out of nothing. Does this take away from the horror that was the insurrection of Jan 6, and Trump's role in it?
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top