Nancy Pelosi & the “Last Clear Chance Doctrine”
To the extent that there was an “insurrection” on J6, it is Nancy Pelosi who is legally liable, not President Trump
[WELCOME to the premier of American Discerner. As today is the second anniversary of “J6,” what better way to launch than with a piece about the one-and-only Nancy Pelosi. Here you’ll read about how she could be held legally accountable for her J6 activities, without requiring the involvement of the U.S. Department of Justice.]
“Have you been insurrected? You may be entitled to compensation. Call 1-800-SUE-NANC”
Tort law is that area of the law dealing with non-criminal wrongful acts, such as intentional harm or negligence, resulting in property damage or injuries to others. Within tort law, there is the “last clear chance” doctrine.
That doctrine means that when two parties were each the catalysts of what became a (wrongful) occurrence, but that one involved later could have prevented it from happening, the latter is the one who will be held legally liable. In other words, they’re liable because they had the “last clear chance” to prevent it from happening; but/for their act(s) or failure to act(s), the occurrence wouldn’t have happened (and so the other party’s prior acts or omissions essentially are irrelevant from a liability standpoint).
If we take that principle and apply it to the events of J6, we find that Nancy Pelosi had the “last clear chance” to prevent the “insurrection” — and thus, is legally liable for what occurred.
Note: We recognize that the “insurrection” is a big lie; a faux narrative. In November, 2020, this country was subjected to a coup using “color revolution” tactics. A stolen election accomplished the insertion of the not-legitimately-elected Biden-Harris Junta into the White House. A standard Communist post-takeover step is to go after and attempt to neutralize “reactionaries” and “counter-revolutionaries” (lest they undo the coup /revolution). Substitute “domestic extremist” for “reactionary” – and “Christian Nationalists” for “counter-revolutionaries” – and you’ll immediately recognize the genesis of the fake narrative about an “insurrection.” It is BULLshitONEY.
To help peddle and keep alive the insurrection bulloney, the Democrats formed the politicized J6 “select committee,” purportedly charged with “investigating” the “insurrection” and President Trump’s alleged role in it. As we know, it was a kangaroo committee from the start, predictably leading to a referral to DOJ recommending prosecution of President Trump and intended to dissuade and/or prevent him from running for office in 2024.
House Republicans (excluded from the sham Democrat committee) independently issued a report that details the glaring – the intentional – Pelosi efforts to exclude Republicans from participation in the security planning for J6, and her deliberate eviscerating of what should have been minimal security precautions.
Pelosi supporters might try to defend, saying that Trump’s speech at the Ellipse on January 6th was the “last clear chance.” But think about it. At the speech he told people (estimated to be a million or more):
And Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us, and if he doesn’t, that will be a, a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our Constitution.
Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down.
Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
Not a scintilla implying violence, nor interfering with the upcoming proceedings in Congress. Meanwhile, as President Trump was saying this Antifa (and/or FBI?) operatives were breaching the Capitol grounds. Further, if there were other contrary Trump communications fomenting an “insurrection” – whether prior or concurrent to that day – don’t you think that Pelosi’s (sham) J6 Committee would have obtained and released them – to great fanfare in the media?
Let’s not forget the context in which Pelosi stood-down security. Long before the election steal / coup was consummated, she was pre-conditioning the public to the narrative that President Trump would contest the election (preemptively working to discredit bona fide efforts to expose the planned election theft) and would refuse to leave office (i.e., resist a peaceful transfer of power). This pre-conditioning continued after the election, shortly before J6. (And let us not forget the arguably mutinous Mark Milley engaging in similar behavior.)
IF there was really such a concern about Trump’s state of mind and what he might do, then adequate, if not extraordinary security around key government buildings would have been ordered for J6. As well, in reserve, a “quick response” capability if escalation / reinforcements were required.
Those”quick response” forces COULD have been deployed right after the initial breach of the Capitol grounds that occurred while Trump was still speaking – and his supporters listening – a mile or more away at the Ellipse. It would have been in place by the time the actual Trump supporters got to the perimeter of the Capitol.
Indeed, one has to suppose that in this post-9/11 world there’s some sort of rapid reaction force as a security protocol, available to quickly secure the Capitol even on a normal day.
Pelosi & the sham J6 committee have been floating the pretext that security was lax out of a concern about the “optics” of the National Guard surrounding the Capitol (a National Guard force offered by President Trump days before J6, and declined by Nancy Pelosi).
“Optics.” Really?
To reinforce the narrative that Pelosi had been propagating for months, the “optics” of a strong security presence around the Capitol would have been desirable.
We certainly know that Pelosi wanted such optics after the “insurrection,” when the Capitol grounds were transformed into Fort Pelosi, with the poor National Guard troops forced to sleep in cold parking garages.
No, the pre-J6 concern with “optics” doesn’t add-up … unless one wanted the “optics” of agitator-led intrusion of the Capitol building (through opened-from-the-inside metal security doors), and the cessation of the proceedings at which evidence of the election steal was to be presented to a national television audience. A presentation of evidence that would have benefitted President Trump, not the parties behind the coup.
We are all inundated with tort-lawyer ads on TV. Perhaps some will adapt to the political realm – and sensing “deep pockets” from which to collect judgments – solicit business representing people injured by the false “insurrection” narrative (the J6 political prisoners first and foremost).
What “class action” lawsuits those could make!
Consider counts describing defamation (false accusation of being an “insurrectionist”), entrapment, malicious prosecution / prosecutorial misconduct, kidnapping (politically-driven FBI raids), false imprisonment (the D.C. Gulag), refusal to conduct speedy trials. Oh, and perhaps some RICO counts alleging conspiracy?
Not to mention multiple grounds of violating Constitutional and/or civil rights even among others not (yet) subjected to Stasi FBI raids and DOJ malicious / false prosecution and imprisonment.
Similar to “being Borked,” this all could be the genesis for a new phrase: “being insurrected.”
Tort lawyers target “deep pocket” defendants so that there are assets sufficient to make their cut worthwhile and collectible. Well, Nancy Pelosi is estimated to be worth $171 million. That qualifies as deep pockets – at least to me, and probably to you. (Many are questioning how she and her husband became so rich while she’s been in office. To say the least, that’s an interesting line of inquiry.) And she’s only one of the potential defendants.
Many (if not all) of them may have committed acts for which neither legislative immunity nor respondeat superior (as federal employees) would apply, i.e., tortious acts far outside the scope of their legitimate duties. In other words, they might be susceptible to civil lawsuits – sued in their personal capacity, which seek judgment against their personal assets.
The lawyer ads nearly write themselves: Have you been insurrected? You may be entitled to compensation. Call 1-800-SUE-NANC for a no cost consultation. No fee unless we recover from Nanc.
Some final thoughts. Was the fake “insurrection” in the planning pipeline well prior to the November 2020 coup / color revolution? Recall above where we mentioned the standard Communist tactic of going after “reactionaries” and “counter-revolutionaries.”
It would make sense that the plotterss behind the coup of November, 2020, expected that there would be violence by patriots who recognized what happened. Likely the plotters wanted that to happen, so as to provide a pretext for cracking-down on Americans seeking to restore our Constitutional Republic (while making them out to be the “violent extremist” — insurrectionist — bad guys).
When that didn’t happen post-election, was the J6 “assault on the Capitol” arranged as a setup – a false-flag operation – so as to provide such a pretext?
We’ll have more on that in an upcoming piece titled: “The ‘Insurrection’ Dog That Didn’t Bark.”
In the meantime, ponder whether you might be entitled to compensation from Nancy Pelosi et als. …