info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Horrific Reality at the Border
154 views
Skip to first unread message
Irish Mike
Jan 18, 2023, 1:12:28 PM1/18/23
to
There is heartbreaking video showing three sisters, ages seven, five,
and three, being rescued by Mexican authorities on the southern
banks of the Rio Grande River. The girls are crying—no adults in sight.
Thousands of unaccompanied minors have been caught up in
President Biden's insane, lax border policy. Migrants are attracted
to the border because they believe they can easily enter the USA
and have absolutely no control over their destinies. Some make
it here; some die in the attempt. The Mexican cartels do whatever
they want to these defenseless people.
President Biden and the Democratic Party look away, failing to
even address this enormous human rights danger they, themselves,
have caused. Millions of people are at risk, not to mention Americans
who are getting hurt by uncontrolled immigration.
Yet Biden does nothing. He fiddles while abandoned children cry in
the bush. This is horrific and should spell the end of Biden's credibility
and the progressive movement which demands open borders.
But it won't because the corrupt press remains invested in the President
and his far-left masters. The corporations that control what we see on television also have no interest in saving children by exposing Biden's massive incompetence.
It is almost impossible to digest all this.
But it's happening, and as long as Biden is President, it will continue to happen. By: Bill O'ReillyJanuary 18, 2023
Irish Mike
and three, being rescued by Mexican authorities on the southern
banks of the Rio Grande River. The girls are crying—no adults in sight.
Thousands of unaccompanied minors have been caught up in
President Biden's insane, lax border policy. Migrants are attracted
to the border because they believe they can easily enter the USA
and have absolutely no control over their destinies. Some make
it here; some die in the attempt. The Mexican cartels do whatever
they want to these defenseless people.
President Biden and the Democratic Party look away, failing to
even address this enormous human rights danger they, themselves,
have caused. Millions of people are at risk, not to mention Americans
who are getting hurt by uncontrolled immigration.
Yet Biden does nothing. He fiddles while abandoned children cry in
the bush. This is horrific and should spell the end of Biden's credibility
and the progressive movement which demands open borders.
But it won't because the corrupt press remains invested in the President
and his far-left masters. The corporations that control what we see on television also have no interest in saving children by exposing Biden's massive incompetence.
It is almost impossible to digest all this.
But it's happening, and as long as Biden is President, it will continue to happen. By: Bill O'ReillyJanuary 18, 2023
Irish Mike
Michael Falkner
Jan 18, 2023, 2:13:59 PM1/18/23
to
Then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
And there's only one thing you can do about it.
Mike
And there's only one thing you can do about it.
Mike
JGibson
Jan 19, 2023, 1:13:57 PM1/19/23
to
On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 1:12:28 PM UTC-5, Irish Mike wrote:
> There is heartbreaking video showing three sisters, ages seven, five,
> and three, being rescued by Mexican authorities on the southern
> banks of the Rio Grande River. The girls are crying—no adults in sight.
>
> Thousands of unaccompanied minors have been caught up in
> President Biden's insane, lax border policy. Migrants are attracted
> to the border because they believe they can easily enter the USA
> and have absolutely no control over their destinies. Some make
> it here; some die in the attempt. The Mexican cartels do whatever
> they want to these defenseless people.
>
> President Biden and the Democratic Party look away, failing to
> even address this enormous human rights danger they, themselves,
> have caused.
And assuming you (or O'Reilly) actually cares about these children, the solution is what? To make them stay in their war-torn "shithole" countries?
> There is heartbreaking video showing three sisters, ages seven, five,
> and three, being rescued by Mexican authorities on the southern
> banks of the Rio Grande River. The girls are crying—no adults in sight.
>
> Thousands of unaccompanied minors have been caught up in
> President Biden's insane, lax border policy. Migrants are attracted
> to the border because they believe they can easily enter the USA
> and have absolutely no control over their destinies. Some make
> it here; some die in the attempt. The Mexican cartels do whatever
> they want to these defenseless people.
>
> President Biden and the Democratic Party look away, failing to
> even address this enormous human rights danger they, themselves,
> have caused.
Irish Mike
Jan 19, 2023, 4:25:13 PM1/19/23
to
Irish Mike
Ken Olson
Jan 19, 2023, 5:37:24 PM1/19/23
to
anything they bring with them. There are too many baddies to just open
the gates.
--
ÄLSKAR - Fänga Dagen
Слава Україні та НАТО
TE
Jan 19, 2023, 8:20:45 PM1/19/23
to
The circle of life.
-TE
> Irish Mike
michael anderson
Jan 19, 2023, 8:24:52 PM1/19/23
to
JGibson
Jan 19, 2023, 9:00:36 PM1/19/23
to
Michael Falkner
Jan 20, 2023, 2:55:10 AM1/20/23
to
On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:25:13 PM UTC-8, Irish Mike wrote:
> How about (and I know this radical) they apply for legal citizenship?
How about you enforce that with hot lead?
> How about (and I know this radical) they apply for legal citizenship?
Because that's the only way you're getting it done -- same with what Ken Olson said.
There have been a lot of Republicans bantering about forming a militia force, armed, at the Southern border, and turning it red with foreign blood.
We're still waiting for you to stop talking and start doing.
Mike
The NOTBCS Guy
Jan 20, 2023, 1:02:59 PM1/20/23
to
> > How about (and I know this radical) they apply for legal citizenship?
> How about you enforce that with hot lead?
>
> Because that's the only way you're getting it done -- same with what Ken Olson said.
>
> There have been a lot of Republicans bantering about forming a militia force, armed, at the Southern border, and turning it red with foreign blood.
Bantering, perhaps, but this country knows how to handle armed militias - some of us remember Waco. Yes, I remember Oklahoma City as well.
> How about you enforce that with hot lead?
>
> Because that's the only way you're getting it done -- same with what Ken Olson said.
>
> There have been a lot of Republicans bantering about forming a militia force, armed, at the Southern border, and turning it red with foreign blood.
As for just handing out green cards to anyone who comes here legally, isn't there some sort of limit per country, which is part of the problem - apparently, most, if not all, of the ones trying to get in legally have to claim some sort of asylum?
Michael Falkner
Jan 20, 2023, 1:12:11 PM1/20/23
to
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:02:59 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> > > How about (and I know this radical) they apply for legal citizenship?
> > How about you enforce that with hot lead?
> >
> > Because that's the only way you're getting it done -- same with what Ken Olson said.
> >
> > There have been a lot of Republicans bantering about forming a militia force, armed, at the Southern border, and turning it red with foreign blood.
> Bantering, perhaps, but this country knows how to handle armed militias - some of us remember Waco. Yes, I remember Oklahoma City as well.
Do you have the right to be a militia under the Second Amendment or not?
> > > How about (and I know this radical) they apply for legal citizenship?
> > How about you enforce that with hot lead?
> >
> > Because that's the only way you're getting it done -- same with what Ken Olson said.
> >
> > There have been a lot of Republicans bantering about forming a militia force, armed, at the Southern border, and turning it red with foreign blood.
> Bantering, perhaps, but this country knows how to handle armed militias - some of us remember Waco. Yes, I remember Oklahoma City as well.
(I know that answer, it's part of the reason I take this position. #RepealThe2nd.)
If you have the right to be a militia under the Second Amendment, there are many very "interesting" immediate next steps -- that being one of them.
Mike
The NOTBCS Guy
Jan 20, 2023, 3:06:28 PM1/20/23
to
> > > There have been a lot of Republicans bantering about forming a militia force, armed, at the Southern border, and turning it red with foreign blood.
> > Bantering, perhaps, but this country knows how to handle armed militias - some of us remember Waco. Yes, I remember Oklahoma City as well.
> Do you have the right to be a militia under the Second Amendment or not?
>
> (I know that answer, it's part of the reason I take this position. #RepealThe2nd.)
I've seen how you interpret the Constitution - and yes, this is coming from somebody who insists that nothing prevents former Presidents Obama, Bush "the younger," or Clinton from becoming Vice-President (and then possibly President, should the office be vacated).
> > Bantering, perhaps, but this country knows how to handle armed militias - some of us remember Waco. Yes, I remember Oklahoma City as well.
> Do you have the right to be a militia under the Second Amendment or not?
>
> (I know that answer, it's part of the reason I take this position. #RepealThe2nd.)
As for your question:
You have the right to "keep and bear arms." Nothing in the Second Amendment about the "right to form a militia," except possibly a "well-regulated one," and something tells me the ones you are thinking of are not.
That also does not mean that a militia has the right to take the law into its own hands in violation of the laws of this country and the state it happens to be in.
Michael Falkner
Jan 21, 2023, 10:47:15 PM1/21/23
to
On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 12:06:28 PM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> I've seen how you interpret the Constitution - and yes, this is coming from somebody who insists that nothing prevents former Presidents Obama, Bush "the younger," or Clinton from becoming Vice-President (and then possibly President, should the office be vacated).
That is an incorrect statement.
> I've seen how you interpret the Constitution - and yes, this is coming from somebody who insists that nothing prevents former Presidents Obama, Bush "the younger," or Clinton from becoming Vice-President (and then possibly President, should the office be vacated).
The 12th Amendment states otherwise. No person ineligible for the office of President can be Vice-President.
Now, if you wanted to play that game, start thinking of Speaker of the House or something to that effect -- but the 12th Amendment prevents that scenario.
> As for your question:
> You have the right to "keep and bear arms." Nothing in the Second Amendment about the "right to form a militia," except possibly a "well-regulated one," and something tells me the ones you are thinking of are not.
> That also does not mean that a militia has the right to take the law into its own hands in violation of the laws of this country and the state it happens to be in.
One man's terrorist attack is another's revolution.
Mike
The NOTBCS Guy
Jan 22, 2023, 9:59:52 AM1/22/23
to
> > I've seen how you interpret the Constitution - and yes, this is coming from somebody who insists that nothing prevents former Presidents Obama, Bush "the younger," or Clinton from becoming Vice-President (and then possibly President, should the office be vacated).
> That is an incorrect statement.
>
> The 12th Amendment states otherwise. No person ineligible for the office of President can be Vice-President.
Correct - but none of them are "ineligible for the office of President." If you're about to mention the 22nd Amendment, nothing in it says that they cannot become President again - only that they cannot be ELECTED President. NOTHING about not being allowed to become President by being Vice-President first. (Fixing this loophole is on my list of "things they need to consider if somebody ever gets around to calling for a Constitutional Convention
> That is an incorrect statement.
>
> The 12th Amendment states otherwise. No person ineligible for the office of President can be Vice-President.
> > You have the right to "keep and bear arms." Nothing in the Second Amendment about the "right to form a militia," except possibly a "well-regulated one," and something tells me the ones you are thinking of are not.
> That's where the courts go south -- they DO believe the populace is a militia in and of it's own merit.
> > That also does not mean that a militia has the right to take the law into its own hands in violation of the laws of this country and the state it happens to be in.
> And that gets into the argument of "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."
>
> One man's terrorist attack is another's revolution.
Michael Falkner
Jan 22, 2023, 6:13:09 PM1/22/23
to
On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 6:59:52 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> Correct - but none of them are "ineligible for the office of President." If you're about to mention the 22nd Amendment, nothing in it says that they cannot become President again - only that they cannot be ELECTED President. NOTHING about not being allowed to become President by being Vice-President first. (Fixing this loophole is on my list of "things they need to consider if somebody ever gets around to calling for a Constitutional Convention
They cannot be Vice-President. I think you're laying that you believe they would be Gerald Ford-ed into the offices at that point. I don't see that as possible under the 12th.
> Correct - but none of them are "ineligible for the office of President." If you're about to mention the 22nd Amendment, nothing in it says that they cannot become President again - only that they cannot be ELECTED President. NOTHING about not being allowed to become President by being Vice-President first. (Fixing this loophole is on my list of "things they need to consider if somebody ever gets around to calling for a Constitutional Convention
There is still a loophole you need to fix, and it comes from succession below the VP.
> > > You have the right to "keep and bear arms." Nothing in the Second Amendment about the "right to form a militia," except possibly a "well-regulated one," and something tells me the ones you are thinking of are not.
> > That's where the courts go south -- they DO believe the populace is a militia in and of it's own merit.
> You may be thinking of "The Militia of the United States" (Title 10, Section 246, United States Code), which consists pretty much of all men between the ages of 17 and 44, plus all women in the National Guard. I assume this is what gives the President and Congress authority to call a military draft.
It's one of the reasons I am actually shocked you aren't seeing some of the bigots and the like take up the legality of murdering "certain people" as a function of an action of a militia under 2A.
> > > That also does not mean that a militia has the right to take the law into its own hands in violation of the laws of this country and the state it happens to be in.
> > And that gets into the argument of "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."
> >
> > One man's terrorist attack is another's revolution.
> I never said that they couldn't form private militias - just that I doubted that the Second Amendment gave anyone a "right" to do so.
Mike
The NOTBCS Guy
Jan 22, 2023, 8:34:10 PM1/22/23
to
> > Correct - but none of them are "ineligible for the office of President." If you're about to mention the 22nd Amendment, nothing in it says that they cannot become President again - only that they cannot be ELECTED President. NOTHING about not being allowed to become President by being Vice-President first. (Fixing this loophole is on my list of "things they need to consider if somebody ever gets around to calling for a Constitutional Convention
> They cannot be Vice-President. I think you're laying that you believe they would be Gerald Ford-ed into the offices at that point. I don't see that as possible under the 12th.
No - the way I read the Constitution, they can be elected Vice-President the way, say, Kamala Harris was elected Vice-President in 2020 (or on January 6, 2021, if you want to look at it that way.) They could also be "Gerald Ford-ed" into the office, as you put it. You yourself say that there is a loophole that would allow them to be President presumably directly from being, say, Speaker of the House, so they aren't "constitutionally ineligble to the office of President," which is what the 12th Amendment requires to prevent someone from being Vice-President.
> They cannot be Vice-President. I think you're laying that you believe they would be Gerald Ford-ed into the offices at that point. I don't see that as possible under the 12th.
Pretty much the only way you can't "become" President is by Congress somehow "withdrawing its consent" to the electoral college vote after it has been held.
Michael Falkner
Jan 23, 2023, 1:14:56 AM1/23/23
to
On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 5:34:10 PM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> > > Correct - but none of them are "ineligible for the office of President." If you're about to mention the 22nd Amendment, nothing in it says that they cannot become President again - only that they cannot be ELECTED President. NOTHING about not being allowed to become President by being Vice-President first. (Fixing this loophole is on my list of "things they need to consider if somebody ever gets around to calling for a Constitutional Convention
> > They cannot be Vice-President. I think you're laying that you believe they would be Gerald Ford-ed into the offices at that point. I don't see that as possible under the 12th.
> No - the way I read the Constitution, they can be elected Vice-President the way, say, Kamala Harris was elected Vice-President in 2020 (or on January 6, 2021, if you want to look at it that way.) They could also be "Gerald Ford-ed" into the office, as you put it. You yourself say that there is a loophole that would allow them to be President presumably directly from being, say, Speaker of the House, so they aren't "constitutionally ineligble to the office of President," which is what the 12th Amendment requires to prevent someone from being Vice-President.
The 12th actually prevents the scenario you are giving.
> > > Correct - but none of them are "ineligible for the office of President." If you're about to mention the 22nd Amendment, nothing in it says that they cannot become President again - only that they cannot be ELECTED President. NOTHING about not being allowed to become President by being Vice-President first. (Fixing this loophole is on my list of "things they need to consider if somebody ever gets around to calling for a Constitutional Convention
> > They cannot be Vice-President. I think you're laying that you believe they would be Gerald Ford-ed into the offices at that point. I don't see that as possible under the 12th.
> No - the way I read the Constitution, they can be elected Vice-President the way, say, Kamala Harris was elected Vice-President in 2020 (or on January 6, 2021, if you want to look at it that way.) They could also be "Gerald Ford-ed" into the office, as you put it. You yourself say that there is a loophole that would allow them to be President presumably directly from being, say, Speaker of the House, so they aren't "constitutionally ineligble to the office of President," which is what the 12th Amendment requires to prevent someone from being Vice-President.
> Pretty much the only way you can't "become" President is by Congress somehow "withdrawing its consent" to the electoral college vote after it has been held.
Mike
The NOTBCS Guy
Jan 23, 2023, 1:41:27 PM1/23/23
to
> > > They cannot be Vice-President. I think you're laying that you believe they would be Gerald Ford-ed into the offices at that point. I don't see that as possible under the 12th.
> > No - the way I read the Constitution, they can be elected Vice-President the way, say, Kamala Harris was elected Vice-President in 2020 (or on January 6, 2021, if you want to look at it that way.) They could also be "Gerald Ford-ed" into the office, as you put it. You yourself say that there is a loophole that would allow them to be President presumably directly from being, say, Speaker of the House, so they aren't "constitutionally ineligble to the office of President," which is what the 12th Amendment requires to prevent someone from being Vice-President.
> The 12th actually prevents the scenario you are giving.
Either they are eligible to be President (and they are, at least the way I read it - just not eligible to be elected President), in which case, they can be Vice-President since the 12th Amendment restriction is on anyone "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President" (quoted directly from the last line of the amendment), or they are not, in which case, they cannot become President in any other way, including being Speaker of the House when the Presidency and Vice-Presidency are both vacant, so that loophole you claim exists isn't there. Which is it?
> > No - the way I read the Constitution, they can be elected Vice-President the way, say, Kamala Harris was elected Vice-President in 2020 (or on January 6, 2021, if you want to look at it that way.) They could also be "Gerald Ford-ed" into the office, as you put it. You yourself say that there is a loophole that would allow them to be President presumably directly from being, say, Speaker of the House, so they aren't "constitutionally ineligble to the office of President," which is what the 12th Amendment requires to prevent someone from being Vice-President.
> The 12th actually prevents the scenario you are giving.
Michael Falkner
Jan 23, 2023, 4:39:59 PM1/23/23
to
On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 10:41:27 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> Either they are eligible to be President (and they are, at least the way I read it - just not eligible to be elected President), in which case, they can be Vice-President since the 12th Amendment restriction is on anyone "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President" (quoted directly from the last line of the amendment), or they are not, in which case, they cannot become President in any other way, including being Speaker of the House when the Presidency and Vice-Presidency are both vacant, so that loophole you claim exists isn't there. Which is it?
Are you assuming the Speaker promotes to Vice President if the VP is vacant?
> Either they are eligible to be President (and they are, at least the way I read it - just not eligible to be elected President), in which case, they can be Vice-President since the 12th Amendment restriction is on anyone "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President" (quoted directly from the last line of the amendment), or they are not, in which case, they cannot become President in any other way, including being Speaker of the House when the Presidency and Vice-Presidency are both vacant, so that loophole you claim exists isn't there. Which is it?
That's not the case, but many do believe that.
The loophole is you could get a double-vacancy, like many Americans believe should happen now.
Mike
The NOTBCS Guy
Jan 23, 2023, 5:06:06 PM1/23/23
to
On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 1:39:59 PM UTC-8, Michael Falkner wrote:
> On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 10:41:27 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
>
> > Either they are eligible to be President (and they are, at least the way I read it - just not eligible to be elected President), in which case, they can be Vice-President since the 12th Amendment restriction is on anyone "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President" (quoted directly from the last line of the amendment), or they are not, in which case, they cannot become President in any other way, including being Speaker of the House when the Presidency and Vice-Presidency are both vacant, so that loophole you claim exists isn't there. Which is it?
> Are you assuming the Speaker promotes to Vice President if the VP is vacant?
No.
> On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 10:41:27 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
>
> > Either they are eligible to be President (and they are, at least the way I read it - just not eligible to be elected President), in which case, they can be Vice-President since the 12th Amendment restriction is on anyone "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President" (quoted directly from the last line of the amendment), or they are not, in which case, they cannot become President in any other way, including being Speaker of the House when the Presidency and Vice-Presidency are both vacant, so that loophole you claim exists isn't there. Which is it?
> Are you assuming the Speaker promotes to Vice President if the VP is vacant?
> The loophole is you could get a double-vacancy, like many Americans believe should happen now.
1. Is President Obama (or, for that matter, Clinton, or GW Bush) "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President"? Yes, or no?
2. If he is, then how could he become President if he was Speaker of the House and both the President and Vice-President are vacant? He's ineligible to be President - period. There is no loophole.
3. If he is not, then what part of the 12th Amendment prevents him from being Vice-President? The only restriction is that he cannot be "constitutionally ineligible," but this question applies only if he is not "constitutionally ineligible" (if he is, then go back and answer part 2).
Michael Falkner
Jan 23, 2023, 6:47:22 PM1/23/23
to
On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 2:06:06 PM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 1:39:59 PM UTC-8, Michael Falkner wrote:
> > On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 10:41:27 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> >
> > > Either they are eligible to be President (and they are, at least the way I read it - just not eligible to be elected President), in which case, they can be Vice-President since the 12th Amendment restriction is on anyone "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President" (quoted directly from the last line of the amendment), or they are not, in which case, they cannot become President in any other way, including being Speaker of the House when the Presidency and Vice-Presidency are both vacant, so that loophole you claim exists isn't there. Which is it?
> > Are you assuming the Speaker promotes to Vice President if the VP is vacant?
> No.
> > The loophole is you could get a double-vacancy, like many Americans believe should happen now.
> Then re-read my question. I will rephrase it.
>
> 1. Is President Obama (or, for that matter, Clinton, or GW Bush) "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President"? Yes, or no?
Yes.
> On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 1:39:59 PM UTC-8, Michael Falkner wrote:
> > On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 10:41:27 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> >
> > > Either they are eligible to be President (and they are, at least the way I read it - just not eligible to be elected President), in which case, they can be Vice-President since the 12th Amendment restriction is on anyone "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President" (quoted directly from the last line of the amendment), or they are not, in which case, they cannot become President in any other way, including being Speaker of the House when the Presidency and Vice-Presidency are both vacant, so that loophole you claim exists isn't there. Which is it?
> > Are you assuming the Speaker promotes to Vice President if the VP is vacant?
> No.
> > The loophole is you could get a double-vacancy, like many Americans believe should happen now.
> Then re-read my question. I will rephrase it.
>
> 1. Is President Obama (or, for that matter, Clinton, or GW Bush) "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President"? Yes, or no?
> 2. If he is, then how could he become President if he was Speaker of the House and both the President and Vice-President are vacant? He's ineligible to be President - period. There is no loophole.
> 3. If he is not, then what part of the 12th Amendment prevents him from being Vice-President? The only restriction is that he cannot be "constitutionally ineligible," but this question applies only if he is not "constitutionally ineligible" (if he is, then go back and answer part 2).
Mike
The NOTBCS Guy
Jan 23, 2023, 6:52:11 PM1/23/23
to
> > 1. Is President Obama (or, for that matter, Clinton, or GW Bush) "constitutionally ineligible to the office of President"? Yes, or no?
> Yes.
> > 2. If he is, then how could he become President if he was Speaker of the House and both the President and Vice-President are vacant? He's ineligible to be President - period. There is no loophole.
> The idea is that he would be skipped, but I can't think of a scenario like him being Speaker which would not be with that in mind.
Then there is no loophole. End of the argument. If one of them was Speaker and both the offices of President and Vice-President were vacant, then the President Pro Tempore of the Senate becomes President. Never mind what anybody "has in mind."
> Yes.
> > 2. If he is, then how could he become President if he was Speaker of the House and both the President and Vice-President are vacant? He's ineligible to be President - period. There is no loophole.
> The idea is that he would be skipped, but I can't think of a scenario like him being Speaker which would not be with that in mind.
0 new messages