On January 8th, Nancy Pelosi Made an Ominous Phone Call That Could Change Everything

The Democrats and the mainstream media have successfully branded the January 6th melee as an “armed insurrection” even though nobody was armed.

In reality, the only people who had loaded guns were the Capitol Police. And as a result, one unarmed Trump supporter by the name of Ashli Babbit was shot and killed – and sadly, nearly four months later, her death still remains a mystery.

The January 6th event was a mixed bag of goodies. Many different types of people showed up for a lot of different reasons. Fed-up Americans who believed their votes were stolen were there to let their voices be heard. Rowdy patriots, ready to take back the government and drain the swamp showed up.

Left-wing agitators and reporters were on sight to stoke the fires of “revolution,” and good-hearted MAGA “grandma and grandpas” who just wanted to support President Trump were innocently meandering around as well.

Some agitators fought with police in front of the cameras, while other groups were quietly ushered into the Capitol building by DC officials who looked more like friendly tour guides than law enforcement.

What happened on January 6th was not an insurrection by any stretch of the imagination. Instead, it was a jumbled assortment of protest and political theater that was cleverly molded by Dems and media to form a “domestic terrorism” narrative.

But unbeknownst to most Americans, there actually was an “insurrection” that took place at the Capitol – however, it didn’t happen on January 6th. It took place on January 8th and it was carried out by Nancy Pelosi.

Two days after the Capitol melee, Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made an ominous phone call that could change the entire game. On January 8th, Nancy Pelosi picked up her phone and bypassed the military chain of command by making a jaw-dropping direct appeal to Army General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley.

Think about that for a minute: a politician who has no place whatsoever within the national security chain of command, went around the already-established chain of command channels and used her power and position to try and give direct orders to the nation’s top military officer.

What Nancy Pelosi did when she made that phone call was as close to an “insurrection” that you can get and a it was far more menacing and dangerous than anything “politically motivated” that went down at the Capitol on January 6th.

That’s why now, both the Pentagon and Pelosi are trying to cover up the very phone call.

However, Judicial Watch is all over the case – and they’re now suing to get their hands on that damning phone call.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s January phone call with U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — in which Pelosi raised concerns about what she described as an ‘unhinged’ President Trump — is now the subject of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. Watchdog group Judicial Watch announced its legal action this week, saying the call between the House speaker and the nation’s top military officer – regarding the powers of a sitting president – set a “dangerous precedent” that could affect future presidencies. The group said its Jan. 11 request for information regarding the Jan. 8 call between Pelosi and Milley received no response from the Department of Defense. [Fox News]

Below is a tweet thread from Judicial Watch discussing the FOIA request in more detail:

BREAKING: Judicial Watch announced that it has filed a FOIA lawsuit against the DOD for records about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s January 8, 2021, telephone call with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley (1/3). https://t.co/yfWSaGIkNU — Judicial Watch ⚖️ (@JudicialWatch) March 9, 2021

In addition, Nancy Pelosi foolishly documented her conversation with General Milley in a letter to her Democrat colleagues. Here’s some of what she said:

This morning, I spoke to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike… The situation of this unhinged President could not be more dangerous, and we must do everything that we can to protect the American people from his unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy. Later, she added:

As you know, there is growing momentum around the invocation of the 25th Amendment, which would allow the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to remove the President for his incitement of insurrection and the danger he still poses… Yesterday, Leader Schumer and I placed a call with Vice President Pence, and we still hope to hear from him as soon as possible with a positive answer as to whether he and the Cabinet will honor their oath to the Constitution and the American people. Based on Pelosi’s own description of the phone call in that letter, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton is convinced that the Speaker of the House stepped way, way over the line.

Fitton said Pelosi has set a “dangerous precedent that could undermine the president’s role as commander in chief and the separation of powers.”

Indeed. However, what Pelosi did was even scarier and crazier than that. This woman tried to push the US military into taking “action” in a national domestic incident.

The only question now is – once her call is made public will Republicans pounce and use Pelosi’s power-crazed move to flip the false “insurrection narrative” on its ear, or will they let another golden opportunity to blow up the Dems narrative quietly slip away?

As a side note to this thread, please consider the following.

Lawmakers who voted to reject requests to throw out "sacred cow” state-certified electoral votes for Biden on January 6 need to lose their jobs under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (14A) for not questioning possible state violations of the 12th Amendment (12A) which have arguably been arguably been going on for the last 100+ years imo.

"14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same [emphasis added], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Regarding so-called state “winner take all” laws for electoral votes for example, the states surrendered their power make such laws when they ratified 12A imo.

Excerpted from the 12th Amendment: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice- President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate [emphasis added];--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; […]"

Pelosi’s January 8 phone call adds to her alleged 12A problems with Section 3 of 14A imo.

And we may not be finished with Section 3.

I also hope that it can be applied to Supreme Court justices regarding the Trump Campaign-related Texas v. Pennsylvania case that the Supreme Court wrongly decided not to hear on the so-called basis of “no standing” imo.

More specifically, not only did the Supremes not invent the constitutionally undefined "no standing" excuse not to hear cases until Massachusetts v. Mellon, 1923, but Justice Joseph Story had previously clarified the Constitution’s state v. state clause.

"Article III, Section 2, Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States [emphasis added];—between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)-- between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Based on the experience of the colonies, Story had written that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had made the state versus state clause to obligate (my word) the Supremes to consider evidence between conflicted states as a last effort try to avoid the worst possible outcome of such a conflict.

From the writings of Justice Joseph Story…

§ 1674. "Under the confederation, authority was given to the national government, to hear and determine, (in the manner pointed out in the article,) in the last resort, on appeal, all disputes and differences between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatsoever [!!! emphases added]. Before the adoption of this instrument, as well as afterwards, very irritating and vexatious controveries existed between several of the states, in respect to soil, jurisdiction, and boundary; and threatened the most serious public mischiefs. Some of these controversies were heard and determined by the court of commissioners, appointed by congress. But, notwithstanding these adjudications, the conflict was maintained in some cases, until after the establishment of the present constitution." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3, 1833, The University of Chicago Press.
§ 1675. "Before the revolution, controversies between the colonies, concerning the extent of their rights of soil, territory, jurisdiction, and boundary, under their respective charters, were heard and determined before the king in council, who exercised original jurisdiction therein, upon the principles of feudal sovereignty. This jurisdiction was often practically asserted, as in the case of the dispute between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, decided by the privy council, in 1679; and in the case of the dispute between New Hampshire and New York, in 1764. Lord Hardwicke recognised this appellate jurisdiction in the most deliberate manner, in the great case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore. The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time. Some tribunal, exercising such authority, is essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the government [emphasis added]. That it ought to be established under the national, rather than under the state, government; or, to speak more properly, that it can be safely established under the former only, would seem to be a position self-evident, and requiring no reasoning to support it. It may justly be presumed, that under the national government in all controversies of this sort, the decision will be impartially made according to the principles of justice; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality, by confiding it to the highest judicial tribunal." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.

For emphasis, from section 1675 above…

"The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.

Also, consider that the Civil War Union States ignored electoral votes of the Confederate States for the presidential election of 1864.

"Because eleven Southern states had declared secession from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America, only twenty-five states participated in the election." —Presidential election of 1864.

Finally, as another freeper has suggested, consider that Trump as private citizen actually has more flexibility to deal with many of the nation's problems, including alleged vote-counting fraud by desperate Democrats, than if he had remained in Oval Office.

In other words, if Trump needs the Oval Office he may just go back there.

Corrections, insights welcome.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.