WASHINGTON – Congresswoman Luria has delivered for Coastal Virginians in her first year in office by maintaining a strong emphasis on a commitment to quality constituent service, prolific outreach, and significant legislative achievements.
“From securing a much-needed raise for veterans’ disability benefits to championing the health of our Chesapeake Bay, I will continue to make sure that our community’s priorities are heard throughout the halls of Congress,” Congresswoman Luria said.
During her first year, Congresswoman Luria and her constituent service team helped recover more than $1.5 million owed to constituents from federal agencies, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Social Security Administration. Additionally, Congresswoman Luria’s constituent services team resolved 105 cases for constituents.
For example, Otis Taylor of Hampton contacted the Congresswoman’s staff for help recovering VA benefits after a decade of bureaucratic paralysis.
“Congresswoman Luria’s office got me the answers and the back pay I was due in less than three months,” Mr. Taylor said. “The staff’s willingness to listen to my complaint and follow up with different agencies made all the difference!”
Congresswoman Luria and her staff have and will continue to maintain a heavy presence in Coastal Virginia. They have hosted or attended 1,195 meetings with constituents and continue to be active in local events.
“Being an effective resource for Coastal Virginia means maintaining an active presence in our community and providing constituents with outstanding service,” Congresswoman Luria said. “Over the past year, I have had the honor of meeting with countless constituent organizations and helping connect people to important government agencies. I’m excited to continuing to serve the hardworking people of Virginia’s Second Congressional District at the same high level in 2020.”
On the legislative front, Congresswoman Luria has introduced 12 bills, including three that became law as standalone bills, four that passed the House, and one that became law as part of a larger legislative package. In addition, Congresswoman Luria had 11 other legislative initiatives signed into law, such as funding requests and amendments incorporated into other bills.
Paul Plante says
Hmmmmmmmmm, why no mention of her vote to impeach Trump?
One would have thought she would have that right up there at the top of her list of favorite legislative accomplishments.
MJM says
Yeah, well I receive Congresswoman Luria’s press releases in my e mail box.. I too received this one summarizing her congressional year. I thanked her for her service and then I told her that all of her positive work is far outweighed to the negative side by her voting to impeach. To her credit, Elaine ( that is how she signed her letter to me) responded to me, or her staff did. The response was the standard party release that she did not go to Congress to impeach, she basically did so with a heavy heart, and because “this was done due to her need to react to what is right and what is wrong” That it was also done because of the oath she took at age 17 when she vowed “to protect this country from all enemies, even those from within”. I am sure I slightly misquoted here, but you get the idea.
I could not help but respond again. I this time thanked her for her naval service but again disputed her impeachment vote. I noted that her political response to me failed to point out any crime The President committed, much less an impeachable one. Just “a wrong”. I told her that she apparently forgot the other part of her oath where she swore her allegiance to The Office of The President. I wrapped it up by opining to her that when her party comes to her and tells her they expect her to abandon her principles simply in order to get their monetary support, it may be time to serve in the private sector where I am sure she is certainly qualified.
Dick says
I’m sorry but what? Since when does Congress swear allegiance to the executive branch?
Paul Plante says
With respect to her vote to impeach Trump, Congresswoman Luria makes much of her taking an oath when she entered the United States Navy, as if Congresswoman Luria’s oath contained much more in it of substance than the oath all us other veterans took, which is rank horse****.
When I enlisted in the United States Army in 1967 to defend this nation and its people and OUR Constitution, I along with every other soldier was provided with a copy of The Soldier’s Handbook, which I still have, and at p2, it stated thusly:
When you entered the Army, you raised your right hand and swore that you would bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and that you would serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies whomsoever.
This is a sacred oath taken by you and there is a great trust placed in you by the people of America that you honor this oath.
end quotes
Whether that is what Congresswoman Luria was taught when she entered the U.S. Navy remains a mystery to me, and based on how she seems to be defending her vote to impeach Trump on her taking an oath to enter the Navy, I would have to think not, which is more than passing strange.
With respect to “true faith and allegiance,” which sadly seem to have become very nebulous and uncertain terms with no concrete meaning, at p.6 of the Soldier’s Handbook, it states this about OUR Constitution, to wit:
The Constitution contains 24 amendments.
The first 10 are called “The Bill of Rights.”
These rights state the individual freedoms guaranteed to American citizens, namely, freedom of religion, speech, and press, the right of petition to Government, of peaceful assembly, of trial by jury, of counsel and due process of law, to keep and bear arms, and the right to just compensation for private property, freedom from housing soldiers, from unreasonable search and seizure, from self-incrimination and double jeopardy, and from excessive bail, and cruel and unusual punishments.
end quotes
My focus as a veteran is on due process of law, which Congresswoman Luria has made a mockery of here with her vote to impeach Trump.
Due process of law is supposed to be guaranteed to ALL American citizens, which should, in other circumstances, anyway, include Trump.
But because Trump is reviled and thoroughly hated and despised by the Democrats because he dared to deprive Hussein Obama’s chosen successor of her rightful ,place as America’s next president, the Democrats, including Congresswoman Luria, made a conscious decision to strip him of the due process rights owed to a dog suspected of being rabid in the State of New York, or a convicted felon accused of being mentally ill and dangerous.
As a Congresswoman, one would think that Congresswoman Luria would know much more about American citizenship responsibilities than us mere yokels out here in the countryside who swore the same oath she did, but sadly, in her case, the opposite seems to be true – she don’t know ****-all about American citizenship – all she seems to know is allegiance to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party.
She along with all the other Democrats who voted for impeachment voted to single out an American citizen that they detest, and to strip that American citizen of due process rights he is entitled to under the U.S. Constitution as an American citizen, which makes a complete mockery of her oath, and renders her response that she did not go to Congress to impeach, she basically did so with a heavy heart, and because “this was done due to her need to react to what is right and what is wrong” as nothing more than mealy-mouth horse****, since the wrong here is being done by the Democrats, as they try to cover over alleged corrupt acts by Democrat presidential contender Joe Biden in Ukraine while he was Hussein Obama’s vice president.
As to the propriety of Trump’s dealings with the head of the corrupt ****-hole of Ukraine as United States president, in Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 135 S. Ct. 2076 (2015), Justice Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court provided us with the following guidance on that subject, to wit:
Citing American Insurance Ass’n v. Garamendi, Justice Kennedy asserted that the Nation should “speak . . . with one voice” in regards to recognizing a foreign sovereign.
Justice Kennedy argued, “only the Executive has the characteristic of unity at all times.”
He stated that the President’s ability to engage in more secretive diplomatic relations, which may lead to recognition, and the nature of the President’s position, which allows the President to take “decisive, unequivocal action” necessary to recognize a foreign sovereign, justify a finding that the “one voice” should come from the Executive Branch and not the Legislative Branch.
end quotes
Now, you would think that as a United States Congresswoman, a so-called “law maker,” that Congresswoman Luria would be as familiar with those words as I, a common American citizen, am – words which make clear that with respect to Ukraine, it was Trump as president who set policy, not the House Democrats, who are firmly over into what is Trump’s wheelhouse in that matter of Ukraine as they attempt a Constitutional coup and usurpation and arrogation of executive authority unto themselves, where “arrogate” means take or claim (something) without justification, as in “the House Democrats to include Congresswoman Luria arrogate to themselves the ability to divine the nation’s true interests.”
But since she voted to impeach Trump for doing exactly what the United States Constitution provides he is to do with respect to foreign powers, either she is ignorant of OUR Law of the Land, or she simply does not give a damn.
Consequently, she does not belong in a government of free people, period.
Paul Plante says
With respect to Congresswoman Luria’s claim that her vote to impeach Trump “was done due to her need to react to what is right and what is wrong,” as an IMPEACHER in a nation where RULE OF LAW is still the standard, as opposed to the feelings, passions and emotions of Congresswoman Luria, which could be based on nothing more than intestinal gas caused by eating a bean-burger one too many, the Congresswoman owes We, the American People a lot more than that drivel.
In point of fact, what the Congresswoman owes us is exactly what “Beast” Butler owed We, the American People when he was impeaching Andy Johnson back when, and that is a detailed explanation of first, what “right” is, or happens to be in her world view, this according to OUR Constitution and laws as written, as opposed to some arbitrary and capricious standard being employed by the Democrats to discredit Trump ahead of the 2020 presidential election that the Democrats hope to sweep and God help the nation if that were to happen; and then she needs to explain to us in detail how exactly it was that Trump deviated from any of those laws, because right now, according to the record she says supports her vote to impeach, the only real crime Trump has been accused of, is looking to put an end to the corruption in Ukraine that Democrat presidential contender Joe Biden is linked to, which the Democrats including Congresswoman Luria are feverishly trying to cover over.
During the Johnson impeachment trial, “Beast” Butler, the prosecutor, in his opening statements, outlined for the court and thus, for We, the American People, which group would include Congresswoman Luria, a definition of impeachable offenses, starting with a definition of an impeachable misdemeanor.
According to the standard established during the Johnson trial, an impeachable misdemeanor might be an act that subverted the principles of government, such as one that violated the Constitution or that flouted an official oath or duty or law, or it could be an act that abused or usurped power.
Except there are no principles in OUR government that state with legal authority that corrupt Democrats are above the law, and cannot be investigated for corruption when they announce they are running for president as a Democrat and start their fund-raising; nor is it a violation of OUR Constitution for a sitting American president causing an investigation to be made into alleged corrupt activities of a Democrat presidential contender; nor did Trump’s official oath of office contain a provision stating the investigations of corrupt activities by Democrats are off-limits; nor did Trump have a duty to refrain from causing Democrat corruption to be investigated; nor is there any law against it.
So what “right and wrong” is Congresswoman Luria talking about then?
The candid world would truly like to know.
MJM says
For Dick, and his question. I did not say Elaine swore her allegiance when she joined Congress. She wrote me that she swore first her allegiance when she as 17, and has done so again a few times. I believe she is a Naval Academy graduate so I would guess that she first took this oath when she first entered that academy.
Paul Plante says
Depending on how she entered service, she indeed could have taken the oath several times.
If she went directly to the Naval Academy, she would have taken this oath:
HAVING BEEN APPOINTED A MIDSHIPMAN IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY, I SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; THAT I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY, WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION; AND THAT I WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE ON WHICH I AM ABOUT TO ENTER, SO HELP ME GOD.
end quotes
If she entered as enlisted and then went to the academy, she would have taken the oath twice.
After she graduated and was commissioned, and was subsequently promoted, she could have taken the oath several more times.
But seriously, how many times should one have to take the same or similar oaths, before it actually means something?
When somebody turns seventeen and joins the Navy, with respect to citizenship and OUR Republican frame of government guaranteed to We, the People by OUR Constitution, and our Bill of Rights guaranteeing DUE PROCESS OF LAW, should they be ignorant of any of those things?
And if they are somehow ignorant of those things after getting out of high school, should they still be ignorant after four years in Annapolis?
After four years of Annapolis, should a graduate be ignorant of what the words of the oath they are about to take as a commissioned officer really do mean in a society of free people?
And then she took the oath again upon becoming a congressional representative for the people of Cape Charles and environs in her congressional district.
Should she still have been ignorant of its provisions with regard to DUE PROCESS OF LAW and RULE OF LAW in the United States of America?
Paul Plante says
If, as she says, Congresswoman Luria did not go to Congress to impeach, and she basically did so with a heavy heart, and because “this was done due to her need to react to what is right and what is wrong” because of the oath she took at age 17 when she vowed “to protect this country from all enemies, even those from within,” why is she now remaining silent while her leader Nancy Pelosi sits on those Articles of Impeachment and plays games with the American people while at the same time openly impugning the integrity of the Senate as a body, making claims that the Democrats are not going to get a fair trial of their charges in the Senate, which is very insulting not only to the institution of the Senate, but to the American people, as well?
Why her silence, one can only wonder?
As to Nancy Pelosi and her pack of Democrats sitting on the Articles of Impeachment, that is actually from the playbook of a hack Democrat lawyer named Laurence H. “Larry” Tribe, the co-author of “To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment,” who also works at Harvard perverting our laws and Constitution, as outlined in an Op-Ed Larry had placed in the Washington Post and the Salt Lake Tribune titled “Laurence H. Tribe: Impeach Trump, but don’t necessarily try him in Senate” by Laurence H. Tribe | Special to The Washington Post, published: June 6, 2019, updated: June 07, 2019, where Larry laid out the strategy Nancy and her pack of Democrats are following now as they try to influence the 2020 presidential election against Trump, as follows:
It is possible to argue that impeaching President Donald Trump and removing him from office before the 2020 election would be unwise, even if he did cheat his way into office, and even if he is abusing the powers of that office to enrich himself, cover up his crimes and leave our national security vulnerable to repeated foreign attacks.
Those who make this argument rest their case either on the proposition that impeachment would be dangerously divisive in a nation as politically broken as ours, or on the notion that it would be undemocratic to get rid of a president whose flaws were obvious before he was elected.
Rightly or wrongly – I think rightly – much of the House Democratic caucus, at least one Republican member of that chamber (Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan), and more than a third of the nation’s voters, disagree.
They treat the impeachment power as a vital constitutional safeguard against a potentially dangerous and fundamentally tyrannical president and view it as a power that would be all but ripped out of the Constitution if it were deemed unavailable against even this president.
That is my view, as well.
Still, there exists concern that impeachment accomplishes nothing concrete, especially if the Senate is poised to quickly kill whatever articles of impeachment the House presents.
This apprehension is built on an assumption that impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate are analogous to indictment by a grand jury and trial by a petit jury: Just as a prosecutor might hesitate to ask a grand jury to indict even an obviously guilty defendant if it appeared that no jury is likely to convict, so, it is said, the House of Representatives might properly decline to impeach even an obviously guilty president – and would be wise to do so – if it appeared that the Senate was dead set against convicting him.
But to think of the House of Representatives as akin to a prosecutor or grand jury is misguided.
The Constitution’s design suggests a quite different allocation of functions: The Senate, unlike any petit (or trial) jury, is legally free to engage in politics in arriving at its verdict.
And the House, unlike any grand jury, can conduct an impeachment inquiry that ends with a verdict and not just a referral to the Senate for trial – an inquiry in which the target is afforded an opportunity to participate and mount a full defense.
The House, assuming that an impeachment inquiry leads to a conclusion of Trump’s guilt, could choose between presenting articles of impeachment even to a Senate precommitted to bury them and dispensing with impeachment as such while embodying its conclusions of criminality or other grave wrongdoing in a condemnatory “Sense of the House” resolution far stronger than a mere censure.
The resolution, expressly and formally proclaiming the president impeachable but declining to play the Senate’s corrupt game, is one that even a president accustomed to treating everything as a victory would be hard-pressed to characterize as a vindication.
(A House resolution finding the president “impeachable” but imposing no actual legal penalty would avoid the Constitution’s ban on Bills of Attainder, despite its deliberately stigmatizing character as a “Scarlet ‘I’ ” that Trump would have to take with him into his reelection campaign.)
The point would not be to take old-school, House impeachment leading to possible Senate removal off the table at the outset.
Instead, the idea would be to build into the very design of this particular inquiry an offramp that would make bypassing the Senate an option while also nourishing the hope that a public fully educated about what this president did would make even a Senate beholden to this president and manifestly lacking in political courage willing to bite the bullet and remove him.
By resolving now to pursue such a path, always keeping open the possibility that its inquiry would unexpectedly lead to the president’s exoneration, the House would be doing the right thing as a constitutional matter.
It would be acting consistent with its overriding obligation to establish that no president is above the law, all the while keeping an eye on the balance of political considerations without setting the dangerous precedent that there are no limits to what a corrupt president can get away with as long as he has a compliant Senate to back him.
And pursuing this course would preserve for all time the tale of this uniquely troubled presidency.
end quotes
Is that the action Congresswoman Luria is backing here with her silence?
The candid world would like to know.
Paul Plante says
And as of yesterday, I and many other loyal Americans who like Congresswoman Luria swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States of America, and who also STAND and pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and the REPUBLIC for which that flag we don’t kneel to stands, and in my case, at least, play a powerful version of the Star-Spangled Banner on the five-string banjo, believe the choice now confronting Democrat congresswoman Luria is whether she will continue to kow-tow and bow and scrape to her political leader Nancy Pelosi, a tyrannical and despotic government in the United Stated of America unto herself, who we believe from her most recent statements in the New York Times story “Pelosi Alerts House to Be Ready to Send Impeachment Articles Next Week” by Nicholas Fandos on 10 January 2020 is at the minimum suffering from some sort of serious paranoid delusions, or as likely, is simply gone totally bat-**** crazy from the pressure as Attorney General Henry Stanbery is alleged to have done during the impeachment trial of Democrat “King” Andy Johnson for high crimes, misdemeanors and just plain talking smack about the Congress, who didn’t like Andy, nor did he think much about them, or will the Congresswoman stand with the Nation in calling for Nancy Pelosi to vacate the Office of Speaker of the House because of mental unfitness. which takes us to these mouthfuls of mindless drivel from Nancy, as follows:
WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi alerted lawmakers on Friday that she would move next week to transmit articles of impeachment against President Trump to the Senate and prompt a historic trial over charges that the president abused his office and obstructed Congress.
In a letter to colleagues Friday morning, the speaker moved to end a weekslong impasse over the impeachment process that had left the president’s fate in limbo.
end quotes
Finally, the exasperated nation is saying!
And if that was as a result of Congresswoman Luria getting up enough guts to confront Nancy Pelosi to tell her in no uncertain terms to cut the childish and churlish bull**** because the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia weren’t for having it, being patriotic Americans as they are, by and large, at least in her district, the people of America owe her a debt of gratitude.
And what, besides her silly little political games, was Nancy up to with this delay besides skullduggery and partisan political chicanery?
And why should We, the American People be forced to have to endure this frankly bizarre behavior from the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who has destroyed any dignity that high office might have had, which takes us back to the New York Times as follows:
She did not announce the members of the team she will ask to manage the case, but said the House should be ready to vote to appoint them sometime next week.
end quotes
Way late is better than not at all, Nancy, and here, We, the American People are requesting that you appoint Congresswoman Luria as one of those managers so she can protect our Constitutional rights by smashing any defense Trump’s legal team might raise, and thereby, with her fiery histrionics in defense of OUR Constitution and flag, get Donald Trump tossed out of the White House on his ***!
Getting back to Nancy in the NYT, we have:
“In an impeachment trial, every senator takes an oath to ‘do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws,’” Ms. Pelosi wrote.
end quotes
And despite that, we already know that all the Democrat Senators starting with Charley “Chuck” Schumer intend to hang Trump regardless of any evidence that might come forward at a trial, so, in the case of the Senate Democrats, so ,much for that oath because it is already been made a joke by the Senate Democrats, especially those on the campaign trail who hope to bring down Trump with their impeachment vote to clear the road for them come November 2020, which takes us to this gem from Nancy in the NYT, to wit:
“Every senator now faces a choice: to be loyal to the president or the Constitution.”
end quotes
HAW, HAW, HAW, Nancy, because every Democrat Senator now faces a choice of being loyal to you and the Democrat party or being loyal to you and the Democrat party, and my bet is that they are too afraid of you and your political power to stand up for the Constitution, the Nation, and DUE PROCESS OF LAW, which at the minimum, Nancy, and this is high school civics for those of us who are not Democrats, requires an UNBIASED TRIBUNAL, which did not exist in the House of Representatives since you assumed power, and especially during this impeachment farce you have been pushing in order to subvert the 2020 presidential election in favor of the Democrats.
Getting back to Nancy bizarre and irrational behavior, we have:
For weeks now, Mr. McConnell “has been engaged in tactics of delay in presenting transparency, disregard for the American people’s interest for a fair trial and dismissal of the facts,” Ms. Pelosi wrote in her letter.
end quotes
That is such obviously stupid horse**** it isn’t funny, and the only reason I can think that the New York Times would have repeated it is to warn the nation just how far gone this woman’s wits really are, because the only one engaged in the tactics of delay was Nancy Pelosi, and it is she and her pack of Democrats who have been acting in disregard of the American people’s interest for a full and fair trial.
Heed the voice of the loyal American people, Congresswoman Luria, and rid the Congress of this scourge and political disease named Nancy Pelosi on grounds of non compos mentis!
Dave says
Paul Plante – once again providing brilliant commentary and analysis. You should be on TV. Americans need to hear this.
Paul Plante says
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Dave, but I’m too old, funny-looking, and I talk too slow to be on television.
That’s why I appear here on the Cape Charles Mirror, instead.
Paul Plante says
Yes, people, non compos mentis, which means not sane or in one’s right mind, and a clear and present danger to OUR Republic, as a result, and here I am talking about Democrat Congresswoman from San Francisco Nancy Pelosi, who We, the American People are stuck with as Speaker of the House of Representatives, even though the signs are she really has gone bat**** crazy, and here I am referring to the POLITICO article “Pelosi defends impeachment delay, warns of Senate ’cover-up’” by Sarah Ferris on 12 January 2020, where we are regaled as follows, to wit:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday defended her decision to temporarily delay the Senate’s impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, despite securing no promises from GOP leaders to allow witness testimony.
“What we think we accomplished in the past few weeks is that we wanted the public to see the need for witnesses,” Pelosi said on ABC News’ “This Week,” marking her first public comments since ending the lengthy standoff with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Friday.
“Now the ball is in their court to either do that or pay the price,” Pelosi said.
end quotes
Pay the price?
HUH?
Pay what price?
What on earth can this deranged woman be talking about?
This is all crazy talk pouring out from Nancy’s mouth and nothing more.
The Democrats HAVE impeached Trump, past tense.
In impeaching Trump, the Democrats have in fact brought Trump up on criminal charges based on what they said at the time of the vote to impeach, was sufficient evidence of Trump’s alleged criminality.
So what need is there for more witnesses?
Either the evidence at the time of the vote to impeach supports the criminal charges brought against Trump by the House Democrats, to include Congresswoman Luria, who faces some serious choices here, will she be loyal to a woman who appears unhinged, or will she be loyal to the Constitution, or it doesn’t!
Period!
And by stalling as she has been doing, all Nancy has done is to reveal to not only the people of America, but the people of the world that her impeachment charges are totally bogus, and all she can do is play games, continue to lie, and stall, which takes us back to Politico, as follows:
The California Democrat once again hedged on questions of timing, declining to say when House Democrat would take next steps to name their team of “managers” who will prosecute Trump in the trial.
“What I did say is that I would be consulting with my members this week,” Pelosi said, referring to a caucus-wide meeting on Tuesday morning.
“We’ll determine in our meeting when we’ll send them over.”
end quotes
And the stalling continues!
No big surprises there, anyway!
Getting back to Politico:
Pelosi’s delay tactic was also intended to ramp up pressure on potential GOP swing votes: Democrats would need four Senate Republicans to call for witnesses to force McConnell’s hand on the floor.
end quotes
That talk about the delay tactics of “Nancy Money-Bags” being intended to ramp up pressure on potential GOP swing votes reminds me of the impeachment of “King” Andy Johnson and the vote of Senator Ross to acquit which to this day people say was bought, because when it says Nancy Pelosi is ramping up pressure, it is short-hand for Nancy Pelosi trying to buy votes to convict, which brings us back to Politico for more of this garbage from Nancy, to wit:
The California Democrat announced Friday that she would relent in the three-week impasse, which began Dec. 18 when she refused to formally transmit the articles across the Capitol in a bid for what she and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called a fairer process.
Asked if she had second thoughts about delaying the articles, Pelosi responded: “No, no no, we feel that it has produced a very positive result.”
end quotes
Produced a positive result?
The only possible thing that can mean is that Nancy is quite sure she has managed to secure enough votes to convict Trump!
Other than that, her delay has only made her look stupid and out of touch with reality, as we see by returning to Politico, as follows:
“More importantly,” Pelosi said, “raising the profile of the fact that we need to have witnesses and documentation, and if we don’t, that is a cover-up.”
end quotes
Uh, right, right, okay, Nancy, whatever you say!
And Congresswoman Luria, please do your duty to the nation – call for the removal of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House before it is too late, because having a deranged and unhinged person like Nancy Pelosi who is so out of touch with reality it is not funny as Speaker of the House is a clear and present danger to OUR Constitution and OUR Republic.
Paul Plante says
And with the publication of the Washington Post story entitled “Pelosi says Trump ‘impeached for life’ despite McConnell’s ‘gamesmanship,’ ‘coverup’” by Elise Viebeck and Juliet Eilperin on 12 January 2020, which quoted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) spewing mindless and meaningless gibberish, raving about President Trump is “impeached for life,” which is a lunatic statement, given that Trump has not yet been subjected to a Senate trial and convicted, which is the only way he could become “impeached for life,” not just because that is the way Nancy Pelosi wants it to be, regardless of “any gamesmanship” by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), whom she accused of orchestrating a “coverup” of Trump’s actions as the Senate waits for the House to transmit the articles of impeachment, Cape Charles Congresswoman Elaine Luria should be feeling even more urgency to get this apparently bat**** crazy woman out of the chair of the Speaker of the House of Representatives before she further makes the dignity that should be attached to that high office, more and more of a mockery, instead, because that statement by Nancy Pelosi that Mitch McConnell, a member of the United States Senate, not the House of Representatives, somehow managed to make his way down into the House of Representatives to be able to successfully conduct some type of cover-up that has fatally flawed the Democrat prosecution of the Articles of Impeachment is patently absurd, and serves to show the people of America just how unstable and frankly erratic her thinking has become, to the detriment of We, the American People, and OUR Republic, which Nancy in her deranged mental state threatens to destroy in her lust to destroy Donald Trump, which hate seems to have rotted her brain to the quick, leaving her a hollow, gibbering, husk, which is why Congresswoman Luria must demand that Nancy Pelosi stand down as House Speaker and hand the gavel to someone more mentally composed than is Nancy for the good of the Republic.
Getting back to Nancy Pelosi’s ravings as exposed in the Washington Post, which thank God has finally chosen to stop trying to paper over the fact that this woman’s wits have slipped their moorings big-time, we have:
She repeatedly chastised McConnell for signaling that he is not interested in fully weighing the House’s charges.
“Dismissing is a coverup.”
“Dismissing is a coverup.”
“If they want to go that route again, the senators who are thinking now about voting for witnesses or not — they will have to be accountable for not having a fair trial,” Pelosi said on ABC News’s “This Week.”
end quotes
Which is horse****.
The Constitution, or at least OUR United States Constitution clearly states that in a trial of impeachment in the Senate of a sitting American president, as is the case here, it is the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court who is the presiding officer of the trial, not Mitch McConnell, who is just another juror, so by making these outlandish and ridiculous statements about the trial being unfair, this before she has even bothered to appoint the managers to get the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate pursuant to established and written rules, she is wantonly impugning the integrity of the Chief Justice, without cause, which demeans his high office, and in turn, hers, by demonstrating that she is not mentally fit to be the Speaker of OUR House of Representatives which is why6 Congresswoman Luria now owes the people of Cape Charles to save them and the Republic from this deranged clear and present danger named Nancy Pelosi.
Paul Plante says
And the overwhelming evidence of mental decrepitude on the part of Democrat Nancy Pelosi, who we are stuck with as Speaker of the House continues to mount up, as does the pressure on Cape Charles Democrat Congresswoman Elaine Luria who has to make a decision as to where her true loyalty resides, whether with Nancy Pelosi, or with the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, with Nancy’s public address to the American people today, where Nancy treated us to the following burst of gibberish, to wit:
CNN
“READ: Pelosi statement on impeachment managers and sending articles to Senate”
14 JANUARY 2020
“In December, the House upheld its Constitutional duty to defend democracy For The People: passing two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.”
end quotes
The House of Representatives now has a duty to defend democracy?
That, people, is pure invention or a flight of fancy on the part of Nancy Pelosi, whose wits have become unmoored from reality, because nowhere in the Constitution is the House of Representatives given a duty to defend democracy, but that won’t stop Nancy Pelosi from asserting that falsehood, which takes us back to her statement, as follows:
“I am proud of the moral courage of Members to honor the vision of our Founders for a Republic, the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform to defend it and the aspirations of our children to live freely within it.”
end quotes
Ah, okay, Nancy, that’s all very nice sounding, but what does any of that have to do with defending the criminal charges you and the Democrats have brought against a sitting American president?
And what is this talk about “moral courage,” Nancy?
Isn’t all of that really part of their duty to We, the American Peop0le as a result of their oath to defend OUR Constitution?
And what am I saying, of course it is!
And now we come to the real meat of Nancy’s address, which shows off her diminished mental capacity and lack of ability to make reasonable judgments, to wit:
“The Senate GOP Leader has signed on to a dismissal resolution.”
“A dismissal is a cover-up.”
“The American people will fully understand the Senate’s move to begin the trial without witnesses and documents as a pure political cover-up.”
end quotes
No, Nancy, those of us who know there are written rules in the Federal Register for conducting trials of impeachment in the Senate will not understand that, because it is simply not true, to wit:
United States Senate Manual, 104th Congress
S. Doc. 104-1
Rules for Impeachment Trials
From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, http://www.gpo.gov
RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
Revised pursuant to S. Res. 479, 99-2, Aug. 16, 1986
I. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, agreeably to such notice.
II. When the managers of an impeachment shall be introduced at the bar of the Senate and shall signify that they are ready to exhibit articles of impeachment against any person, the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct the Sergeant at Arms to make proclamation, who shall, after making proclamation, repeat the following words, viz: “All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against —— ——”; after which the articles shall be exhibited, and then the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall inform the managers that the Senate will take proper order on the subject of the impeachment, of which due notice shall be given to the House of Representatives.
III. Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o’clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful.
Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of impeachment, the Presiding Officer shall administer the oath hereinafter provided to the members of the Senate then present and to the other members of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it shall be to take the same.
IV. When the President of the United States or the Vice President of the United States, upon whom the powers and duties of the Office of President shall have devolved, shall be impeached, the Chief Justice of the United States shall preside; and in a case requiring the said Chief Justice to preside notice shall be given to him by the Presiding Officer of the Senate of the time and place fixed for the consideration of the articles of impeachment, as aforesaid, with a request to attend; and the said Chief Justice shall be administered the oath by the Presiding Officer of the Senate and shall preside over the Senate during the consideration of said articles and upon the trial of the person impeached therein.
V. The Presiding Officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.
VI. The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs, precepts, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary way contempts of, and disobedience to, its authority, orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgments, and to make all lawful orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice.
And the Sergeant at Arms, under the direction of the Senate, may employ such aid and assistance as may be necessary to enforce, execute, and carry into effect the lawful orders, mandates, writs, and precepts of the Senate.
VII. The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the Presiding Officer on the trial shall direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for.
And the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the Members of the Senate.
Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate.
VIII. Upon the presentation of articles of impeachment and the organization of the Senate as hereinbefore provided, a writ of summons shall issue to the person impeached, reciting said articles, and notifying him to appear before the Senate upon a day and at a place to be fixed by the Senate and named in such writ, and file his answer to said articles of impeachment, and to stand to and abide the orders and judgments of the Senate thereon; which writ shall be served by such officer or person as shall be named in the precept thereof, such number of days prior to the day fixed for such appearance as shall be named in such precept, either by the delivery of an attested copy thereof to the person impeached, or if that can not conveniently be done, by leaving such copy at the last known place of abode of such person, or at his usual place of business in some conspicuous place therein; or if such service shall be, in the judgment of the Senate, impracticable, notice to the person impeached to appear shall be given in such other manner, by publication or otherwise, as shall be deemed just; and if the writ aforesaid shall fail of service in the manner aforesaid, the proceedings shall not thereby abate, but further service may be made in such manner as the Senate shall direct.
If the person impeached, after service, shall fail to appear, either in person or by attorney, on the day so fixed therefor as aforesaid, or, appearing, shall fail to file his answer to such articles of impeachment, the trial shall proceed, nevertheless, as upon a plea of not guilty.
If a plea of guilty shall be entered, judgment may be entered thereon without further proceedings.
IX. At 12:30 o’clock afternoon of the day appointed for the return of the summons against the person impeached, the legislative and executive business of the Senate shall be suspended, and the Secretary of the Senate shall administer an oath to the returning officer in the form following, viz: “I, —— ——, do solemnly swear that the return made by me upon the process issued on the —- day of ——, by the Senate of the United States, against —— ——, is truly made, and that I have performed such service as therein described: So help me God.”
Which oath shall be entered at large on the records.
X. The person impeached shall then be called to appear and answer the articles of impeachment against him.
If he appears, or any person for him, the appearance shall be recorded, stating particularly if by himself, or by agent or attorney, naming the person appearing and the capacity in which he appears.
If he does not appear, either personally or by agent or attorney, the same shall be recorded.
XII. At 12:30 o’clock afternoon, or at such other hour as the Senate may order, of the day appointed for the trial of an impeachment, the legislative and executive business of the Senate shall be suspended, and the Secretary shall give notice to the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to proceed upon the impeachment of —— ——, in the Senate Chamber.
XIII. The hour of the day at which the Senate shall sit upon the trial of an impeachment shall be (unless otherwise ordered) 12 o’clock m.; and when the hour shall arrive, the Presiding Officer upon such trial shall cause proclamation to be made, and the business of the trial shall proceed.
The adjournment of the Senate sitting in said trial shall not operate as an adjournment of the Senate; but on such adjournment the Senate shall resume the consideration of its legislative and executive business.
XIV. The Secretary of the Senate shall record the proceedings in cases of impeachment as in the case of legislative proceedings, and the same shall be reported in the same manner as the legislative proceedings of the Senate.
XV. Counsel for the parties shall be admitted to appear and be heard upon an impeachment.
XVI. All motions, objections, requests, or applications whether relating to the procedure of the Senate or relating immediately to the trial (including questions with respect to admission of evidence or other questions arising during the trial) made by the parties or their counsel shall be addressed to the Presiding Officer only, and if he, or any Senator, shall require it, they shall be committed to writing, and read at the Secretary’s table.
XVII. Witnesses shall be examined by one person on behalf of the party producing them, and then cross-examined by one person on the other side.
XVIII. If a Senator is called as a witness, he shall be sworn, and give his testimony standing in his place.
XIX. If a Senator wishes a question to be put to a witness, or to a manager, or to counsel of the person impeached, or to offer a motion or order (except a motion to adjourn), it shall be reduced to writing, and put by the Presiding Officer.
The parties or their counsel may interpose objections to witnesses answering questions propounded at the request of any Senator and the merits of any such objection may be argued by the parties or their counsel.
Ruling on any such objection shall be made as provided in Rule VII.
It shall not be in order for any Senator to engage in colloquy.
end quotes
Why, people, when these Rules are readily available to every single person in America, does Nancy Pelosi either not know they exist, or pretends they don’t exist, as if we were all too stupid to know better?
Getting back to her paranoid delusions, we have:
“Leader McConnell and the President are afraid of more facts coming to light.”
“The American people deserve the truth, and the Constitution demands a trial.”
“The House will now proceed with a vote on transmitting the articles of impeachment and naming impeachment managers on Wednesday, January 15.”
“The President and the Senators will be held accountable.”
end quotes
That last sounds very much like a serious threat to me from a person who sounds positively demented.
Congresswoman Luria, do your duty to the American people, and move that this clear and present danger to OUR Republic be removed from that high office on grounds of unfitness to hold that office due to mental infirmary.