Robert Laity v VP Kamala Harris

[Luke]

It FAILED because he did not include SHERIFF'S KITS. Inexcusable failure. This is all Laity and Mike Volin's fault and birthers should be FURIOUS with them for letting America down.

[Gregg]

Well, that and the Restraining Order AOC got...

[Suranis]

Has anyone told him Don J Twump's Mommy was a Jus Soli British national?

[Sam the Centipede]

Has anyone told him Don J Twump's Mommy was a Jus Soli British national?

But but but for birthers Jus Pellis mandates that when both parents have Privilegio Pellis Albae their progeny are automatically granted freedom from impertinent questions about nationality and loyalty!

[Luke]

BREAKING FRESH NEWS!

OBOTS! Have your Orange Playbook ready, the jig is up. Rev Dr Laity Esq caught on to us... curses! REALIST, should we PANIC?

Complaint against Nancy Pelosi to the US Secret Service
"I'M GOING TO JAIL"
16 hours ago
Do Secret Service agents carry machine guns? If not, why did Obama make such a reference at the Gridiron Club?
October 15, 2022

Kimberly A. Cheatle
Director, U.S. Secret Service
245 Murray Lane, SW, Bldg.T-5
Washington, D.C., 20223 October 15, 2022

Re: Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Director Cheatle,

Pursuant to the authority granted to the U.S. Secret Service under 18 U.S.C., Section 3056 (a) (1), Powers, authorities and duties of United States Secret Service and Section (b) (1) regarding the arrest of person(s) who violate Section 871 of 18USC, Threats against the President, I hereby lodge a criminal information against Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and request that you take action to investigate and prosecute Nancy Pelosi for violation of 18USC, Section 871.

The Speaker, when on January 6th, 2021 threatened to “Punch Out” then President Donald Trump, did so violate 18USC, Section 871 as evidenced by video recorded and made public by the January 6 committee. This conduct, more specifically violated 18 USC, Section 871, (a) “Whoever knowingly and willfully….[makesl any threat to inflict bodily harm against the President…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both”

The burden to prove intent to commit this crime and her knowledge that the threat was illegal has been met given Nancy Pelosi’s statement “I’m going to Jail”.

Laity Signature 2.JPG (15.93 KiB) Viewed 1303 times

cc: Alejandro Mayorkas, SecHomSec
U.S. House Ethics Committee

While Laity wrote the article, it WASN'T ENOUGH so he added a comment too also!

Rob Laity says:
Sunday, October 16, 2022 at 3:46 AM
Pelosi and Biden have both made threats against Donald Trump while he was in office as President of the United States. Biden said that he was going to “take [Trump] behind the building and knock him out”. Now proof has surfaced that Pelosi made a public threat to do harm to President Trump while he was in office. Many other examples exist wherein Trump was threatened such as when Johnny Depp made reference to assassinating Trump and Kathy Griffin held up a bloody effigy of Trump’s head. There have been lesser incidents wherein the Secret Service investigated alleged threats against Obama yet they look the other way when threats against Trump are involved. I was investigated by the Secret Service just for filing a charge against Obama for treason in which I stated that the penalty for Treason includes death.

I told the Secret Service that this was not a threat. I merely pointed out that if convicted of treason, Obama would face the death penalty. The threats made against Trump WERE actual threats to do physical harm to him. The worst part about the threats made against Trump by both Pelosi and Biden is that Biden is now the President of the USA and Pelosi is the Speaker of the House. How far do these people have to go before they are
arrested and brought to Justice? Pelosi and Biden are both complicit with Obama’s usurpation of the Presidency, by fraud, during time of war. Both Pelosi and Biden are complicit with Obama’s treason and espionage against the United States.

It is a FABULOUS idea for Rev Dr Laity Esq to be writing to the Secret Service, especially since they've already paid him one visit at least (if he's telling the truth). He should definitely keep sending them letters (and SHERIFF'S KITS) until they buckle under and obey him. On the other hand, not seeing any relief requested. I'm just worried about Fogbow members having to suddenly flee the country so we don't end up in GITMO. Stay safe out there!

[Foggy]

Oh, lordy. Oh Em Goodness. My signature on the board is a threat to harm the former President of the United States of America. Dear me, whatever shall I do? How do I protect my heroine Nancy Pelosi from the danger that is Robert Lai-- ...

Oh, wait. There never was a more ignorant, useless, humorless, worthless waste of a purported Earthling in the entire Empire State. He has posed literally zero threat to President Obama for fifteen consecutive years, and he thinks he's somebody, but I can guarantee you that after all this time, President Obama has never once heard his name. He simply isn't even interesting enough for us to make jokes about him. He's just a little nasty fool with a big nasty mouth and nothing else to show for himself.

But I'm terribly proud of Ms. Pelosi.

[pipistrelle]

Did Laity leave out the tiny detail that the tfg-incited mob was threatening to kill/hang Pelosi and Pence and that crazed Ashli Babbit tried to break through a window into the speaker's lobby?

[Ben-Prime]

Did Laity leave out the tiny detail that the tfg-incited mob was threatening to kill/hang Pelosi and Pence and that crazed Ashli Babbit tried to break through a window into the speaker's lobby?

Indeed, I believe Speaker of the Castle Doctrine applies.

[Gregg]

Did Laity leave out the tiny detail that the tfg-incited mob was threatening to kill/hang Pelosi and Pence and that crazed Ashli Babbit tried to break through a window into the speaker's lobby?

Indeed, I believe Speaker of the Castle Doctrine applies.

I won't even mention my own opinion that being on the Capital Grounds without her permission would be tresspassing.

[bob]

Did Laity leave out the tiny detail that the tfg-incited mob was threatening to kill/hang Pelosi and Pence and that crazed Ashli Babbit tried to break through a window into the speaker's lobby?

Laity didn't quote Pelosi fully:

I hope he comes. I want to punch him out. This is my moment. I’ve been waiting for this. For trespassing on the Capitol grounds. I want to punch him out, and I’m going to go to jail, and I’m going to be happy.

For a bunch of nutters who believe you can citizen arrest a sitting president, they don't believe reasonable force can be used to effectuate that arrest.

* * *

I won't even mention my own opinion that being on the Capital Grounds without her permission would be tresspassing.

P&E comments:

The President can go into any federal building that he wants to go in.

* * *

She said she was going to “Punch out Trump” and that she was “going to jail”. That is a threat against a sitting President. That is a crime.

[Reality Check]

Hey, Laity knows all about making threats against a sitting president. He even got a visit from the Secret Service as I recall.

[bob]

Hey, Laity knows all about making threats against a sitting president. He even got a visit from the Secret Service as I recall.

Yup; his response was quoted upthread:

I was investigated by the Secret Service just for filing a charge against Obama for treason in which I stated that the penalty for Treason includes death.

I told the Secret Service that this was not a threat. I merely pointed out that if convicted of treason, Obama would face the death penalty. The threats made against Trump WERE actual threats to do physical harm to him.

Laity was never prosecuted, yet wants Pelosi prosecuted for something akin but less ominous than what he said.

[northland10]

P&E comments:

The President can go into any federal building that he wants to go in.

* * *

She said she was going to “Punch out Trump” and that she was “going to jail”. That is a threat against a sitting President. That is a crime.

I assume that applies only when it is a Laity approved President. I guess Mr. Self-Learning just like Lincoln forgot about that whole separation of powers thing.

[bob]

P&E comment:

The President had a legal right to enter the House of Representatives or the Senate at any time pursuant to his presidential duties. “The Executive power shall be invested in the President of the United States…to discharge the powers and duties of said office…to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States…he shall from time to time give to the congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as HE shall judge necessary and expedient…he may…convene both houses of congress…he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, USConst.) He is not required to give Congress information only in writing. He has the right to enter the premises to conduct such business IN PERSON. Trump’s VP was already in the House Chambers. Is it your contention that Pence was authorized to be there but President Trump was NOT? The duty of the President to “Take care that the laws be faithfully executed involves the power and authority to supervise any proceeding of any branch of the US Government IN PERSON whenever HE so wishes. That is one of his duties and cannot be interfered with by the Speaker.

1. The Speaker of the House invites the president to the State of the Union address. Invitation means no trespassing.

2. The ECA states the President of Senate, aka the veep, shall preside over the joint session for counting of the ballots. Authorized by law means no trespassing.

I guess Dr. Laity, Esq. furgot when birthers were drooling over the prospect of the House Sergeant of Arms arresting Obama.

(And we haven't even gotten to the Speech and Debate Clause. )

[Gregg]

I honestly don't know how big a deal we make of it, but the last British Monarch to set foot in the Commons ended up a head shorter for the trouble.

[northland10]

So Laity's whole thing hinges on the President being immune from Trespassing and such. Since Bob has already covered the Constitution stuff, let's looked at the law (40 U.S. Code § 5104 - Unlawful activities):

(2) Violent entry and disorderly conduct.—An individual or group of individuals may not willfully and knowingly—

• (A) enter or remain on the floor of either House of Congress or in any cloakroom or lobby adjacent to that floor, in the Rayburn Room of the House of Representatives, or in the Marble Room of the Senate, unless authorized to do so pursuant to rules adopted, or an authorization given, by that House;
• (B) enter or remain in the gallery of either House of Congress in violation of rules governing admission to the gallery adopted by that House or pursuant to an authorization given by that House;
• (C) with the intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of official business, enter or remain in a room in any of the Capitol Buildings set aside or designated for the use of—
  • (i) either House of Congress or a Member, committee, officer, or employee of Congress, or either House of Congress; or
  • (ii) the Library of Congress;

Oh, they give exemptions for government officials so maybe he's in the clear.

(3) Exemption of government officials.—This subsection does not prohibit any act performed in the lawful discharge of official duties by—

• (A) a Member of Congress;
• (B) an employee of a Member of Congress;
• (C) an officer or employee of Congress or a committee of Congress; or
• (D) an officer or employee of either House of Congress or a committee of that House.

They seemed to have forgotten the President.

[Gene Kooper]

So dim bulb Laity thinks the President has the "the power and authority to supervise any proceeding of any branch of the US Government IN PERSON whenever HE so wishes." Well, I think Joe should start dropping in to supervise ALL SCOTUS proceedings. After reading the P&E, no Justice would dare to vote on anything without their supervisor, the President giving his consent. And by "his" I mean no Gurlz allowed in Laity's world.

What a pile of

[bob]

So dim bulb Laity thinks the President has the "the power and authority to supervise any proceeding of any branch of the US Government IN PERSON whenever HE so wishes."

P&E comment:

The wording in the Constitution states that “he SHALL… give the Congress information…” That is a “duty IN Congress”. The President needs no “Invitation” from the speaker to come into Congress and “Give information”. The constitution states that he “SHALL” perform this duty. It is not up to the Congress whether the President will “give information” in writing or in person. Furthermore, VP Pence was a member of the Executive Branch and President Trump was VP Pence’s superior, supervisor, BOSS!!! Trump had every right to personally supervise Pence’s performance of his duties, in order to ensure that the laws of the US (in this case, the Electoral Count Act) were faithfully executed, This can include IN PERSON supervision of VP Pence’s actions and it can be done without permission of the Speaker or anyone else.

Dr. Laity, Esq. doesn't know (I could end there, but) the vice president is a constitutional officer independent of the president. The president does not hire or fire the vice president. The president has no hard authority over the vice president.

[bob]

P&E comment:

I stand on my previous statements. The President, being required to “Give information” to congress “from time to time” does NOT Preclude a President from doing so IN person. He needs no invitation. A VP can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. That is up to Congress. That said, a President delegates tasks to his VP and therefore a VP is the President’s underling. The President IS the VP’s supervisor given that it is the purview of the President to ensure that everything is working properly., that the laws are being faithfully executed. The Speech and Debate clause deals with the immunity congress and the senate has against lawsuits arising from anything they say during the course of legislative activities. It does NOT preclude a President from coming to the House or Senate to observe or even interact during such sessions.

Like all birthers, dude sure lurves to believe he's right about things that never happened.

[noblepa]

…he shall from time to time give to the congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as HE shall judge necessary and expedient…

He is absolutely right that the Constitution requires the President to give the congress "information of the state of the union". It does not, however mandate that it be in the form of an address to a joint session of Congress, although traditionally, it has been. A president could deliver a written report to Congress and still be in compliance with the Constitutional mandate.

The Constitution also does not specify that it be an annual report, merely that the President do so "from time to time". Again, it has traditionally been done annually. Indeed, it has become one of the most anticipated events in Washington, every year.

Bob is also correct that the Speaker must invite the President. That is true for any visit that the president makes to Congress.

This is really a ceremonial thing, a little bit like Blackrod slamming the door in the British Monarch's face during the opening of Parliament.

[noblepa]

So dim bulb Laity thinks the President has the "the power and authority to supervise any proceeding of any branch of the US Government IN PERSON whenever HE so wishes."

P&E comment:

The wording in the Constitution states that “he SHALL… give the Congress information…” That is a “duty IN Congress”. The President needs no “Invitation” from the speaker to come into Congress and “Give information”. The constitution states that he “SHALL” perform this duty. It is not up to the Congress whether the President will “give information” in writing or in person. Furthermore, VP Pence was a member of the Executive Branch and President Trump was VP Pence’s superior, supervisor, BOSS!!! Trump had every right to personally supervise Pence’s performance of his duties, in order to ensure that the laws of the US (in this case, the Electoral Count Act) were faithfully executed, This can include IN PERSON supervision of VP Pence’s actions and it can be done without permission of the Speaker or anyone else.

Dr. Laity, Esq. doesn't know (I could end there, but) the vice president is a constitutional officer independent of the president. The president does not hire or fire the vice president. The president has no hard authority over the vice president.

I remember an episode of "The West WIng" in which VP John Hoynes (played by Tim Matheson) was being schooled by WH Chief of Staff Leo McGarry (John Spencer) because Hoynes wasn't towing the WH line to Leo's satisfaction. At one point, Hoynes got mad and said something like "excuse me, Leo, but the President doesn't have the constitutional authority to tell me to blow my nose!". I realize that the show was fiction, but this scene illustrates a valid point.

Trump, and a lot of other people don't seem to understand that government is not organized the way businesses are. In a corporation, everyone, through some convoluted chain of command, works for the CEO of the company. This is not true of government. As Bob points out, the VP is a separate constitutionally defined officer. By tradition, especially since the 12th Amendment changed the way VP's are elected, the VP is deferential to the POTUS's wishes, but is under no legal or constitutional obligation to do so.

In government, the command chain from the lowest to highest rank ends with different, separately elected officers. I used to work for a county government in Ohio. I ultimately was under the authority of the County Commissioners. A deputy sheriff, on the other hand reported to the elected Sheriff. Likewise, employees in the Auditor's office reported to the elected Auditor, not the Commissioners.

While it is true that the vast majority of federal employees work in the Executive branch, and therefore report to POTUS, employees of Congress report to congress itself or to the Senator or congressman for whom they work. Likewise, federal court employees ultimately report to the members of SCOTUS, although, for practical purposes, I'm sure that the day-to-day operations are left to an appointed officer. POTUS has no authority over employees in the legislative or judicial branches.

Trump was/is under the impression that every federal employee worked for HIM, personally. That is why he repeatedly referred to the AG as "his lawyer".

[Kriselda Gray]

I've sometimes wondered if it wouldn't be better to have the Pres and VP elected separately, at least in part to make it clearer that the VP isn't like the Pres' tag-team partner.

Another option might be to have the executive office work a bit like Congress where there's a majority leader and a minority leader - one from each party - and select the Pres and VP by having the election winner be Pres and the loser be VP. I dunno, that might not work too well, but it would be a way of giving the losing party perhaps more of a voice in the executive office.

Besides, imagine if Hillary had been trumps VP. He'd have spent more time trying to get rid of her and not had as much time to wreck everything else.

[Gregg]

I've sometimes wondered if it wouldn't be better to have the Pres and VP elected separately, at least in part to make it clearer that the VP isn't like the Pres' tag-team partner.

Another option might be to have the executive office work a bit like Congress where there's a majority leader and a minority leader - one from each party - and select the Pres and VP by having the election winner be Pres and the loser be VP. I dunno, that might not work too well, but it would be a way of giving the losing party perhaps more of a voice in the executive office.

Besides, imagine if Hillary had been trumps VP. He'd have spent more time trying to get rid of her and not had as much time to wreck everything else.

Technically, they are elected independent of each other, and this is the NEW way of doing it, as originally the Vice President was the runner up.

[Mr brolin]

This is really a ceremonial thing, a little bit like Blackrod slamming the door in the British Monarch's face during the opening of Parliament.

Not quite.......

Monarch goes to Parliament with all associated pomp and circumstances from Buck House to Lizard Central

Monarch enters via the Sovereign's Entrance to the Palace of Westminster, no tradesman's entrance for them.....

Monarch goes to the Robing room to get all dressed for the occasion, official Big Old Bling Hat and Cape of Invisibility (Imperial State Crown and the Robe of State)

Monarch then sweats and grunts some as the Hat and Cape are both heavy and bloody hot as they process and vogue to the House of Lords where they finally get to take a weight off in The Big Red Chair (gratuitous Graham Norton Show reference)

Black Rod then hauls it over to the House of Commons to tell the Common and shouty lot to get their butts over to be hearing the speech the current PM (whoever that is this week) has already written.

Being all shouty and Common they slam (slowly, it's a damn heavy door) in Black Rods face going "Neener, Neener, you ain't my boss and you can't come and play in our treehouse, SO THERE!!"

Black Rod, then goes all Gangsta on them and smacks the door with his mighty stick of stuff 3 times and tells the Common and shouty lot to get their ass over to the nice house now or SH**s gonna go down"

Much mumbling occurs then everyone goes "What EVAH" and 'cause they be late they haveta stand whilst the shot caller in the Big Red Chair tells them stuff.

Shot caller finishes, the Common and shouty lot go back to their kennel and much dissing of the speech and shade throwing goes on for the next couple of days...

The end

[northland10]

I've sometimes wondered if it wouldn't be better to have the Pres and VP elected separately, at least in part to make it clearer that the VP isn't like the Pres' tag-team partner.

Another option might be to have the executive office work a bit like Congress where there's a majority leader and a minority leader - one from each party - and select the Pres and VP by having the election winner be Pres and the loser be VP. I dunno, that might not work too well, but it would be a way of giving the losing party perhaps more of a voice in the executive office.

Besides, imagine if Hillary had been trumps VP. He'd have spent more time trying to get rid of her and not had as much time to wreck everything else.

Technically, they are elected independent of each other, and this is the NEW way of doing it, as originally the Vice President was the runner up.

And that runner-up thing, which ended up with a VP that was not a "running mate" with the President, worked out so well we amended the Constitution.

What Laity, and most folks, don't remember is that a VP with executive branch duties is generally a new thing. The traditional role was that the VP would be President of the Senate, a generally ceremonial role, save for the ability to break ties (and the vote counting thing) and as a replacement if we lost the President. This led John Nance Garner to refer to the vice presidency as "not worth a bucket of warm piss"

Oh, the other main, non-Constitutional role of the Vice Presidential candidate is to balance the Presidential ticket for the election.

If a President does not like the VP, they have 2 options:

1. Don't give them anything to do.
2. Replace them as your running mate for the next election.

These options have been repeated many times.