BREAKING: A MOTHER OF THREE IS D.E.A.D AND THE PRESIDENT IS USING VENEZUELA AS A SMOKESCREEN TO BYPASS CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND THE RULE OF LAW.

BREAKING: A MOTHER OF THREE IS D.E.A.D AND THE PRESIDENT IS USING VENEZUELA AS A SMOKESCREEN TO BYPASS CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND THE RULE OF LAW. Congressman Al Green has just delivered what many are calling the most important speech of his career, outlining a path for impeachment that goes far beyond previous attempts. He highlighted the heartbreaking case of Renee Good, who was accosted by masked men and shot while trying to extricate herself from a dangerous situation. Green argues that the administration’s decision to label her a terrorist and shut out local investigators is a sign of a presidency that views itself as above both domestic and international law. He pointed to the Senate’s Joint Resolution 90 as proof that even Republicans are starting to realize the President has overstepped his bounds by engaging in hostilities without authorization. With nuclear-powered aircraft carriers moving and threats being made against lawmakers who disagree, Green insists that the only remedy left is to impeach, convict, and remove the President from office. This is a battle for the very soul of the republic and the relevance of the Constitution itself.

But America did not expect Trump’s ominous response to this Greenland accusations no one saw it coming…
Get the full s.t.o.r.y below👇👇👇

Tensions in Washington as Venezuela Intervention Spurs War Powers Debate — Impeachment Talk Intensifies

WASHINGTON — A growing constitutional confrontation over the *U.S. military action in Venezuela* has intensified scrutiny of presidential authority in Congress and prompted fresh political firestorms in the capital.

Earlier this month, U.S. forces conducted a high-profile operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of that country’s president, Nicolás Maduro, an action the administration described as part of an effort against *narco-terrorism* and other criminal conduct. The operation, however, took place without prior congressional authorization, a fact that has alarmed lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. ([Wikipedia][1])

In response, the U.S. Senate advanced a *war powers resolution* designed to restrict the president’s ability to undertake further military actions against Venezuela without explicit approval from Congress. The measure, tied to **S.J.Res. 90**, aims to direct the removal of U.S. armed forces from hostilities not authorized by Congress — a point of constitutional contention. ([Congress.gov][2])

The Senate’s narrow vote reflects bipartisan unease with the administration’s legal justification, which has invoked the president’s inherent authority to act in certain national-security scenarios without prior congressional consent. Critics argue that this interpretation undermines constitutional checks and balances and could set a dangerous precedent. ([AP News][3])

Amid these developments, talk of impeachment has resurfaced in some political circles. Representative Al Green and others have called for steps toward impeachment proceedings, contending that the administration’s actions represent a serious overreach of executive power. While impeachment advocacy exists, analysts note that such efforts face steep political and procedural hurdles, including the requirement of a majority in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate for removal — outcomes that currently appear unlikely. ([Reddit][4])

The debates in Congress are unfolding against a backdrop of polarized reactions to the Venezuela intervention both domestically and internationally. Supporters of the current policy emphasize the importance of confronting alleged criminal regimes, while opponents warn that unilateral military actions without congressional guidance risk eroding the constitutional separation of powers.

As lawmakers prepare for further votes and continued deliberation, the clash underscores deepening tensions over the limits of executive authority, the role of Congress in decisions of war and peace, and the broader interpretation of constitutional governance in the 21st century.