Episode 36. November 22, 2019. CLP Topic. Destruction of the Rule of Law. Title: What Pelosi Means When She Says “No One Is Above the Law.”

Episode 36. November 22, 2019.

CLP Topic. Destruction of the Rule of Law.

Title: What Pelosi Means When She Says “No One Is Above the Law.”


Our podcast today places Pelosi’s doublespeak, “No one is above the law,” into a larger general theory of the Democrat socialist ideology and behavior.

The theory in our podcast explains why and how there could be such a stark gap in reality between socialists and Trump voters over the issue of impeachment.

Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. For Pelosi, doublespeak is a tool of propaganda that promotes her socialist vision of a socially just society.

Pelosi turns the historical meaning of the term on its head. The illicit impeachment hearing is not authorized by a grant of authority, from citizens  to Pelosi, to impeach Trump, without cause.

Under the American tradition, We, the People are the ultimate sovereign authority, and Pelosi is bound by the authority of the citizens.

The term originated, in 1215, and meant that King John was prohibited from acting against his subjects, without due process.

Applied to impeachment, Pelosi, as an agent of government, cannot unjustly deprive Trump voters of “life, liberty or property” and may not take illegal action against the sovereignty of citizens to remove Trump, without due process.

In order to understand Pelosi’s doublespeak, it must combined with an article of faith in Democrat ideology of social justice that an “expert” class of socialists make better decisions about social welfare than ordinary citizens.

Part of the theory of Democrat behavior explained in this podcast is that the Democrats behavior originates in their moral arrogance that they are the political experts that are better at making decisions than voters.

The socialists deeply believe that socialism is better than individualism.

In their world, there are two classes of citizens, the socialist experts, and the non-socialists, also known as the proletariat, or in modern terms, smelly Walmart shoppers.

When Pelosi uses her term, she means that Trump failed to obey the advice of the deep state experts in foreign policy. Trump, in other words, is not above the law of the experts.

Social welfare would have been better if Trump had taken the advice of William Taylor and George Kent. His failure to heed the expert’s advice becomes a high crime and misdemeanor, and evidence that Trump is failing to execute the duties of the Office.

In the past, the left couched the expert class in terms like “smart growth,” “global climate change,” or “sustainable growth.” The left’s intent is to remove these issues from democratic citizen authority, so that the socialist elites can have unhindered control over the policies.

The ultimate consequence of Pelosi’s socialist ideology of the expert class is a profound anti-democratic ideology against participatory democracy in favor of authoritarian dictatorship.

According to Pelosi, the 63 million Trump voters made a mistake in electing Trump, and their votes must be overturned, by the experts, to correct the voter’s mistake.

Part of the motivation for socialists is to replace a constitutional democratic  form of government with the socialist rule of law imposed on Trump voters, who are deemed to be enemies of the socialist state.

The law is whatever Pelosi says it is, at the moment that she says it. At one moment, Trump is not above the law on collusion with Putin. At the next moment, Trump is not above the law on obstructing justice. Then, Trump is not above the law on bribery with Ukraine.

Only Pelosi is competent to judge what the law is, and her word is the ultimate authority, not the written Constitution, and not the sovereignty of the people.

For example, the reason that Schiff controls the entire impeachment civil process is related to the socialist incipient urge for authoritarian control.

Representative Steve Scalise observes that,

  • Schiff controls who testifies.
  • Schiff controls how Republicans use our question time.
  • Schiff controls what gets released from his secret depositions.
  • Schiff shuts out witnesses who would contradict his one-sided narrative.

Pelosi’s ideological allegiance is to creating a socialist state, not to the voluntary obedience to the rule of law.

Just like Vindman’s allegiance is to the Interagency Intelligence Committee, not to the Constitution.

The expert class is the Democrat’s updated, modern version of the master class, which believed that Jews must be eliminated because they constituted an impediment to the goals of the Third Reich, in the same way that Trump voters constitute an impediment for Pelosi in the creation of the socialist state.

“No one above the law,” is Pelosi’s way of saying that no one is beyond the control of the socialist deep state to determine what is in the best interests of the nation.

Our podcast will argue that the impeachment process is a violation of the 14th Amendment of Trump voters, and violates the separation of powers that constrains the Congress from terminating a presidency, solely for political purposes to remove a political opponent.

We conclude that Bill Maher is correct that the Democrat’s attempt to remove Trump will result in a bloody, protracted civil war between socialists and Trump voters.

We conclude that the ideological differences between the police state repressive society of socialists and the individual liberties of a natural rights republic are irreconcilable.

The only peaceful, non-violent solution to the nation’s conflict is to dissolve the nation into two new nations:

  • The Socialist States of America
  • The Democratic Republic of America.

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this is the copyrighted Citizen Liberty Party News Network podcast for November 22, 2019.

Our podcast today is under the CLP Topic Category, Destruction of the Rule of Law, and is titled, What Pelosi Means When She Says “No One Is Above the Law.”


The most recent podcast of the CLP News Network is available for free. The entire text and audio archive of our podcasts are available for subscription of $30 per year, at the CLP News Network.com.

The Historical Genesis of “No One Above the Law.”

The origins of Pelosi’s term lies in the principle that the King, or the agents of government, are constrained from imposing tyranny on common citizens, without due process.


The term does not mean that a tyrant, like Pelosi, can do to whatever she wants to the King, or to Trump. It means that all citizens, including Pelosi, are bound by the rule of law.

In 1215, the English nobility wanted a set of rights granted to them by the King. In the American tradition, those rights were granted by God, not by the King.

The rights sought by the nobility included religious rights, prohibitions against illegal imprisonment, swift justice, and limits on taxation.

The creation of the King’s Council of 25 barons to provide advice to the King, evolved into King George’s Crown Council, which came over to the colonies in the form of the state Council of States.

In the American setting, the Council of States divided and distributed power to prohibit the arbitrary divine right of King George. In her doublespeak, Pelosi assumes the role of the divine right to overturn the sovereignty of the citizens.

When the colonists met in 1774 to draft a Declaration of Rights and Grievances against King George III, they asserted their rights granted in the Magna Carta.

On the title page of the 1774 Journal of The Proceedings of The Continental Congress is an image of 12 arms grasping a column on whose base is written “Magna Carta.”

Jefferson used the Magna Carta as his source to write his Virginia Declaration of Rights, in 1776. When Madison drafted the Bill of Rights, he incorporated the provisions of Declaration of Rights, and the Magna Carta.

Madison’s provisions included:

  • Protection from unreasonable searches and seizures (4th),
  • Protection of rights to life, liberty, and property (5th),
  • Rights of accused persons in criminal cases (6th),
  • Rights in civil cases (7th), and
  • Other rights kept by the people (8th).

In each right, Pelosi violates the rights of Trump, and the rights of citizens who voted for Trump, in her attempt to disenfranchise those voters, without justification.

The 39th clause of the Magna Carta states that no government can unjustly deprive any individual of “life, liberty or property” and that no legal action can be taken against any person without the “lawful judgment of his equals.”

In Pelosi’s doublespeak, she turns the Bill of Rights upside down by using the government as a weapon, to deprive Trump of his rights, without justification.

In other words, the rights of citizens are rights against a despotic government, not the power of government to override the sovereignty of citizens.

Beginning in 2008, Obama converted the government into a political weapon, under the guise of using government for compassionate purposes. Using the government as a weapon is one of the keys in the theory to explain socialist behavior.

The flaw in Madison’s representative government is that citizens in North Carolina did not elect Pelosi, and North Carolina voters did not ratify the House rules giving her despotic power to overturn a national election.

Yet, North Carolina voters are helpless and defenseless to protect their rights against the Democrat’s tyranny. The only path for citizens is to alter or abolish the government because the government has become destructive to the ends for which it was created.

Nancy Pelosi, in her attempt to impeach Trump, has weaponized Congress, and the damage to the Republic is irreversible. 

The First American Usage of the Term.

The first American public political use of Pelosi’s term occurred on December 7, 1903, when President Theodore Roosevelt used the term in his Third Annual Message to Congress.

Roosevelt was attempting to influence the upcoming Supreme Court decision of Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904), in a case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1903.

In 1904, the Court ruled 5 to 4 against the stockholders of the Great Northern and Northern Pacific railroad companies. The ruling marked Roosevelt’s first successful effort to bust the trusts.

Roosevelt’s private notes showed that he used the term directly with J. P Morgan, in a 1903, private conversation, when he told Morgan that he was not above the law.

Before he learned of Roosevelt’s suit, J. P Morgan had falsely assumed that Roosevelt was a big business Republican like his predecessor, William McKinley.

McKinley had been assassinated, on September 6, 1901, by a socialist, Leon Czolgosz.  Czolgosz was a member of a working man’s socialist club, the Knights of the Golden Eagle, and radical socialist group known as the Sila Club.

Czolgosz had grievances against the big business Republicans, and sought to rectify his grievances by killing his enemy. This behavior of killing enemies is a key characteristic of the socialist mentality.

Roosevelt assumed the Office of President on September 19, 1901, and as Morgan and the other robber barons soon discovered, Roosevelt was not a big business Republican.

He was, instead, a natural rights conservative. Just like Trump.

Roosevelt spoke of a New Nationalism, a broad plan of economic reform for correcting monopoly capitalism, based upon the ideology of national sovereignty, individual sovereignty, and fair dealings with working class Americans.

Just like Trump.

The Modern Usage of the Term.

The first modern usage of the term occurred in December of 1998, when Representative Nancy Johnson, of Connecticut, voted for two of the four articles of impeachment against Clinton.

In casting her vote, Johnson stated,

“No one is above the law, not even the president. I believe perjury does meet at least the definition of high misdemeanor.”

Pelosi borrowed from Johnson when she announced her impeachment inquiry on September 24, 2019.

Pelosi stated, “The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law.”

She had earlier used the term in May, 2019, after a meeting with the Democrat caucus, when she accused Trump of a coverup of Russian collusion, before she latched onto the Ukraine bribery hoax.

Pelosi stated,

“We do believe it’s important to follow the facts. We believe that no one is above the law, including the president of the United States. There are three things Democrats want to convey. One, that Democrats are following the facts to get the truth to the American people. Two, that no one is above the law. And three, that the president is engaged in a cover-up.”

On the day after the election, November 7, 2016, Elija Cummings used the same language as Pelosi.



Cummings said,

“I want to look at all the things the president has done that go against the mandates of our founding fathers in the Constitution. We need accountability, transparency, integrity, and honesty from this administration. Right now, we have a president who is accountable to no one, That is about to change.”

On that same day, Tom Steyer, the founder of NextGen America, and a national political group called Need to Impeach stated,

“The change in control over the U.S. House of Representatives marks a significant step forward, but it will not, on its own, end Donald Trump’s corrupt and dangerous reign. The American people have voted for real change, and it’s critical that these new representatives recognize this will only come with a true political reckoning for the corruption, self-dealing, and lawlessness exemplified by Mr. Trump. He cannot be permitted to continue to break the law with impunity.”

Steyer stated, in one of his ads,

“Donald Trump has brought us to the brink of nuclear war, obstructed justice, and taken money from foreign governments. We need to impeach this dangerous President. No President is above the law.”

House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler said, on that same day, that Trump is “going to learn he’s not above the law.”

Nadler explained, in 2018, the Democrat’s intent to impeach Trump.

Nadler stated,

“If you are actually going to remove a president from office, you are in effect nullifying the last election. Certainly the people who voted for him will think you’re nullifying the election. It’s OK to do that. It may be necessary to do that—as long as you have persuaded a sufficient fraction of the president’s former supporters, the people who voted for him, that you have to, that it’s necessary.”

When Nadler was running for the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, in February of 2018, he stated in his campaign leaflet that he was, “the strongest member to lead a potential impeachment.”


In another forum, early in 2018, Nadler stated, “This President presents the greatest threat to constitutional liberty and the functioning of our government in living memory.”

Representative Al Green states that the case against Trump is bigotry, not high crimes and misdemeanors.

Green stated,

“I think the strongest case is his bigotry and racist policies. We hear people daily on television who call him a racist, a bigot, who say he’s unfit—people in his own party have said he’s unfit to be the President. At some point, Democrats must decide that there ought to be a vote to impeach him for the bigotry and policy. And, by the way, you don’t need to conduct hearings on this, because the President does it in plain view! It’s out there!”

The crux of the Democrat’s behavior is the ability to create their own reality, which then becomes the socialist truth.

For example, in the case of the Ukraine telephone call, Representative Madeleine Dean creates her own reality that Trump encouraged Zelensky to interfere in the 2020 elections.

Dean states,

“Certainly this is the beginning of the public phase, so I think there’s plenty that Americans would want to know about abuse of power by the president, trying to get a foreign country to interfere in our elections.”

Conor Friedersdorf, a socialist writer at The Atlantic, creates his own socially constructed reality in his article about the transcript.

Friedersdorf  states,

“Bribery is at the heart of the Ukraine allegations. If the rough transcript of Trump’s call with Ukraine’s president and various testimonies given to House investigators are accurate, Trump was soliciting a bribe. The bribe would be obvious to everyone if Trump and the people acting on his behalf had told the Ukrainians, We’ll release your military aid, but do us the favor of contributing $1 million to Trump 2020.

Of course, that is not what the transcript shows, so Friedersdorf  must create his own reality, just like Schiff created his own reality of the transcript when he read his version of the transcript in his committee.

In direct contrast to what the transcript shows, Friedersdorf writes,

“The transcript makes clear that Trump tied together the request for a personal favor with the delivery of military aid. But even if he had not made such a direct connection, this sort of corrupt use of public office to obtain a private benefit fits squarely within the definition of bribery when the Constitution was written.”

The explanation of the socialist psychology is their ability to socially construct the truth, based upon how many other socialists affirm their version of the truth.

Socialists are not above the law, they are beyond the law.

When Michael Gerhardt, a Democrat activist socialist law professor from Chapel Hill testifies in closed session before Schiff’s committee, he felt unconstrained to make the required full disclosure of his political activism, in his Congressional disclosure form.

He served as Deputy Media Director of Al Gore’s Senate campaign. He drafted the judicial selection policy for the transition of  Clinton into office. He counseled the Clinton White House regarding Associate Justice Stephen Breyer’s confirmation hearings. He acted as Special Counsel to Senator Patrick Leahy regarding the nominations of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. He is a CNN legal analyst.

In his comments about impeachment, Gerhardt states,

“I think we are turning a major corner. The newest instance of possible misconduct is arguably worse than any committed up until now. The charges are, if true, a classic impeachable offense. We will see whether Democrats press their case and how far and whether any Republicans have a problem with a president who places his own self-interest above that of the nation.”

In a representative republic, operating under the rule of law, citizens have a right to know his bias, and Gerhardt has a legal obligation to fully and fairly disclose his ideology, so that citizens can judge the truth content of his opinions.

His disclosure form only notes his role in the National Constitution Center.

Full and fair disclosure would require him to disclose his obvious Democrat bias. But, Pelosi is not talking about a socialist like Gerhardt being above the law, because in her conception of the law, Gerhardt is a member of the “expert” class and is beyond the law.

When Pelosi engages in her doublespeak, “No one Above the Law,” she is dog-whistling to 65 million Hillary voters that she intends to lynch 63 million Trump voters, because they elected Trump.

“No one is above the law” means that, from the day after Trump was elected, the Democrats have engaged in sedition to overthrow the government.

The irreconcilable danger to the citizen’s natural rights in the constitutional republic is that 65 million Hillary voters believe Pelosi’s version of the truth. And, her version of the truth requires that Trump voters be disenfranchised. 

This is my conclusion

Understanding socialist psychology and socialist behavior is best seen in Nadler’s comments about disenfranchising Trump voters.

Nadler stated,

“Certainly the people who voted for him will think you’re nullifying the election. It’s OK to do that.”

In the theory of socialist behavior, the socialists believe it is OK to override the will of the citizens, because a socialist, like Nadler knows better than the citizens.

Trump voters and natural rights conservatives make a profound mistake by underestimating the danger and derangement of the socialist mentality to undermine a democracy.

We conclude that Bill Maher is correct that the Democrat’s attempt to remove Trump will result in a bloody, protracted civil war between socialists and Trump voters.

Maher explained the irreconcilable differences between socialists and Trump voters, that may lead to a civil war.

Maher stated,

“We all talk about Trump as an existential threat, but his side sees Democratic control of government the exact same way. And when both sides believe the other guy taking over means the end of the world, yes, you can have a civil war,”

Like Maher, we conclude that the ideological differences between the police state repressive society of socialists and the individual liberties of a natural rights republic are irreconcilable.

The only pathway for Trump voters is to alter or abolish the tyrannical government. Altering the government offers a peaceful pathway. Abolishing the government is the path to civil war.

Obama weaponized all agencies of government, including the IRS, the FBI, and the State Department, against the democratic rights of citizens.

Pelosi has succeeded in weaponizing Congress.

After those agencies have been weaponized, there is no way to revert to the proper checks and balances of government because, once socialism is obtained, the ideology of the expert class requires police state enforcement to compel obedience to the socialist rule of law.

Under socialism, there is no equality before the law. There are citizens who are not above the law, and there are citizens who are beyond the law.

Pelosi believes that Trump is not above the law, but that Biden is beyond the law. Biden did exactly what Pelosi accuses Trump of doing in Ukraine, Biden escapes prosecution, while Trump undergoes an impeachment.

And, the law is whatever Pelosi says it is, as long as she is speaker.

The only peaceful, non-violent solution to the nation’s conflict is to dissolve the nation into two new nations:

The Socialist States of America

The Democratic Republic of America.

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network.

You can subscribe to all of the audio and text of our podcasts, for $30 per year, at our website.

You can join the political movement to create a natural rights republic and contribute our mission at CLPnewsnetwork.com

You can learn more about the federalist, state sovereignty framework of the new constitution of the Democratic Republic of America at GABBYpress.com

Thank you for joining me today and please visit our entire archive of podcasts at clpnewsnetwork.com