So When Do REPUBS IMPEACH BIDEN?

No it is not it is not his responsibility.

 

He had no jurisdiction nor cause and fact the committee is trying to claim there was a conspiracy to do so and bring charges against him for it.

Talk of martial law, Insurrection Act draws notice of Jan. 6 committee
Trump White House discussions about using presidential emergency powers have become an important but little-known part of the panel’s inquiry
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...nsurrection-act-draws-notice-jan-6-committee/

 

Wow..... Trump trying a military coup..... just think if he had actually done that. You need to get on one side of the fence or the other...

Pelosi has already protested to just that, but you seem to think you can overrule Pelosi

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/6420-0

 

The security of the Capitol is the job and responsibility of the CP and overseers Pelosi and ilk and the reason Jan.6 was allowed because of inadequate security that day even with the forewarning and the authorized guard.... the blood of Ashley Babbitt is on their hands... no excuse... they failed at their job to secure the Capitol... it is absolutely laughable to say the security of the Capitol was Trump's responsibility...

https://www.uscp.gov/the-department/oversight

 

There are people a lot smarter than you that are in the know about who is responsible for what at the Capitol.... like say Congressmen.... which you are not...

Notice the letter is addressed to Pelosi.... not Trump...

https://republicans-cha.house.gov/sites/republicans.cha.house.gov/files/documents/2-15-2021 Letter to Speaker Pelosi re January 6th.pdf

 

Here are some more folks who know more than you... again.... notice it is addressed to Pelosi.... and not Trump...

https://saraacarter.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Pelosi-Letter.pdf

 

Why did Pelosi openly admit ""I've been waiting for this, trespassing on the Capitol grounds"".... talk about derelict of duty....

 

Read the act. It you don't like the power it gives the President, then you can make common cause with those who feel as you do. Ignoring the Insurrection Act won't make it go away.

Trump could have used the Insurrection Act to protect the Capitol. He didn't.

 

What's your point? You know what the Insurrection says.

 

Obviously, the Capitol Police proved they were unable or unwilling to handle the situation.

 

The letter is propaganda. Figure it out, fer crissake.

You know what the Insurrection Act says. I've quoted it often enough.

 

Pelosi's actons are another area worth considering.

 

I have he had no jurisdiction nor cause and fact the committee is trying to claim there was a conspiracy to do so and bring charges against him for it.

Talk of martial law, Insurrection Act draws notice of Jan. 6 committee
Trump White House discussions about using presidential emergency powers have become an important but little-known part of the panel’s inquiry

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/27/talk-martial-law-insurrection-act-draws-notice-jan-6-committee/

There was no rebellion and the Capital Hill police and DC police had not been rendered unable to enforce the law martial law was not needed.

 

They arrested over 800 people that day and stopped the riot and were enforcement of the law before during and after martial law was not needed. What they need was ASSISTENCE which the President have no authority to send without their request.

 

The Capital Police were unable to handle the situation.

 

Actually the law requires a request from the locals.

 

First, no request was necessary, for the Administration-- which has infinitely more intelligence available at its fingertips, than anyone else-- to be prepared to provide assistance, should it be required. This was not the case. Even the "Quick Reaction Force" which the acting Defense Secretary decided to arrange-- of only 40 Guardsman-- the Pentagon made inoperative, by its depriving its commander (General Walker) from activating them, without his getting approvals, from higher ups.

Secondly, even though I do not know your assertion to be correct, as I have seen no validation of it, requests flooded in to the White House. While Kenneth McCarthy would not have the authority to make the request, we nonetheless know that, early on, he spoke with Trump, alerting him of the situation. Trump's reply was not, "Well then I will get hold of Nancy Pelosi, right away, to get her official request." It was more like, "Well, Kevin, I guess they are more upset about the election, than you are."

Then, when Pelosi DID try to contact Trump, she was not, for some reason, put through, to the President. Now, how this happened, is something, I wish the Committee had gotten to the bottom of.

 

Thus his offer to both DC police and Capitol Police, of 16,000 National guard troops to be stationed in DC just in case. The offer was both rejected and criticized. BEFORE the unrest of 1/6 Trump was required by law to have a request from the state or local authorities. President cant station troops on his own for what might happen in the future.
And the locals cleared it up in a few hours before the guard could get there.

She didnt need Trump. He had already authorized any request from Capitol Police or DC Police. PRE authorized the troops.

 

No, the laws does not require a "request from the locals"....

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

If you don't like the law, change it, but don't pretend it doesn't exist.

 

Nobody is ignoring the act. You cant comprehend the meaning of the text. ALL the above powers arise AFTER a "rebellion" has occurred. NOT before. AND it wasn't "impracticable to enforce the laws" on 1/6. Local police demonstrated this fact by clearing the place in a few hours. VERY practicable in the context of 2020 BLM/ANTIFA riots that dragged on for weeks.

 

Thats AFTER the rebellion has begun, not before.

 

You need to read the act. I don't know how many times I've quoted this...

'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."​

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2016-title10/html/USCODE-2016-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap13-sec252.htm

Suppress the rebellion or "enforce those laws." No rebellion is necessary.

SCOTUS will have to strike down this law or Congress will have to change it, otherwise it remains the law of the land and the President has all the power in his (or her) hands.

 

You're spinning your wheels. No rebellion is necessary.

 

how many times do you have to be told… It applies to states , not to district that DC is….

 

Trump is head of the DC Guard. You're kidding yourself.