The Rise of the House Of Joseph

 THE RISE OF THE HOUSE OF JOSEPH

By Dr. Stephen Jones

Blog Post Date:  5-4-2021

In the progression of the Kingdom of God upon the earth, God first raised up and empowered the house of David in a 7½ year period from May 30, 1993 until November 30, 2000. This period began with the death of prophetic “Saul,” who had reigned for 40 Jubilees since the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Prophetic “David” then received partial authority—enough to begin the work of establishing the Kingdom.

During this early phase of the rule of the overcomers representing David, “David grew steadily stronger, but the house of Saul grew weaker continually” (2 Samuel 3:1). In other words, those who were of the house of Saul (i.e., Pentecost) gradually lost the authority to decide the future of the earth. Conversely, those who were of the house of David (i.e., Tabernacles) gradually grew in strength and authority to bring righteousness into the earth.

On November 30, 2000, the transition from Saul to David was complete according to the biblical pattern in 2 Samuel 5:5. “David,” that is, the overcomers, had received full authority a month earlier at the feast of Tabernacles in Champaign, Illinois. This empowered the overcomers to cast out the Old Covenant (“Hagar”) and her son—the children of the flesh—so that the true Birthright holders (“Isaac”) could be established fully.

So the White Horse Army, prophesied by Sunny Day, overthrew the earthly Jerusalem (or Jebus) on November 29 and then established the heavenly Jerusalem as the mother of the Kingdom.

The declaration was rooted in Psalm 24:1, 2,

¹ The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it. ² For He has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers.

This was essentially a restatement of Genesis 1:1, which established the Creator as the Owner of all things. By right of creation, God owns all things and is ultimately responsible for all that He created, according to the laws of liability and responsibility in Exodus 22. The Apostle Paul thus wrote in Romans 11:36,

³⁶ For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

Although the flesh has fought against the will of God by its own limited authority, God’s will is stronger and ultimately prevails. God’s New Covenant promises will be fulfilled in the end. He will save the world and all that is in it. All the fragments will be gathered, so that nothing is lost (John 6:12). Those who believe the promises of God understand this.

So the house of David, when it was fully empowered on November 30, 2000, declared,

"On that basis [Psalm 24:1, 2], we claim the whole earth as the Kingdom of God. The whole earth will be ruled henceforth, by the Overcomers and their decrees from the position and standpoint of the New Jerusalem. The decree will go forth no longer from Babylon but from Jerusalem."

David and Joseph

The ministry of David did not end on November 30, 2000. David’s authority reached its apex and laid the foundations for the greater work of Joseph that lay ahead. Without David’s work, Joseph could not proceed; without Joseph’s work, David’s work would be limited. Both are vital to the work of establishing God’s Kingdom.

The two works are set forth in the two comings of Christ. He came the first time of the house of David to claim His Scepter. He comes the second time as Joseph to claim His Birthright. Jesus’ death and resurrection was necessary to lay the foundations for His second coming. Without this “David” work, His “Joseph” work could not be finished. This is depicted symbolically in Revelation 19:13, where His second coming is described this way:

¹³ He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

Joseph is the only man in Scripture whose robe was dipped in blood. Genesis 37:31 says,

³¹ So they took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a male goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood.

Prophetically speaking, the blood of the goat represented the blood of Christ in His first coming. This is described in greater detail in the ceremonies on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16), combined with the law of leprosy (Leviticus 14). The two goats on the Day of Atonement represent the two comings of Christ. Likewise, the two doves to cleanse lepers prophesy of Christ in His two comings. The second dove was dipped in the blood of the first dove.

Thus, the law of God prophesies of Christ and reveals that He must come twice. Both comings are important. The first work on the cross makes the second possible. So also is it with the houses of David and Joseph. Jesus had to fulfill the Passover before He could fulfill the feast of Tabernacles. And Pentecost was an interim that allowed spiritual growth and cleansing by the fire of the Holy Spirit.

Saul’s Kingdom was Temporary

There are three churches in the progression of the Kingdom. The Passover church began when Moses led Israel out of Egypt at their first Passover. The Pentecost church began in Acts 2, when a greater anointing was given. The Tabernacles church is that which is arising today, and its apex will be reached when the overcomers are changed into His likeness (1 Corinthians 15:52).

The countdown toward that historic event has already begun. The rise of the house of David was the first phase toward the fulfillment of the feast of Tabernacles. The rise of the house of Joseph is the second phase. I have no revelation about the length of time this second phase requires.

Saul was a prophetic type of the anointing of Pentecost. The main sign that Samuel gave to assure him of the legitimacy of his calling is found in 1 Samuel 10:6,

⁶ Then the Spirit of the Lord will come upon you mightily, and you shall prophesy with them and be changed into another man.

A few days later, this occurred (1 Samuel 10:9, 10). A few days later Saul was crowned on the feast of weeks, later known as Pentecost. At Samuel’s coronation speech, he said in 1 Samuel 12:17, “Is it not the wheat harvest today?” It was the day that the meal offering of wheat was to be given to God so that men could begin the wheat harvest.

Hence, Saul’s reign was a Pentecostal reign, prophesying of the church that was empowered in the interim between the two comings of Christ. Though the calling was legitimate, it was not meant to be permanent, for Saul was of the tribe of Benjamin, not Judah. The Scepter had been given to Judah in Genesis 49:10. So it was inevitable that Saul would disqualify himself.

In the story of Saul’s war with Amalek, we read of Saul’s rebellion in 1 Samuel 15:23,

²³ For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He has also rejected you from being king.

Saul reigned another 22 years, but his dynasty was limited at that point. The Roman Church (along with many other denominations) has claimed that its reign will never end. They cite Jesus’ statement to Peter in Matthew 16:18 as proof of this.

¹⁸ I also say to you that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Jesus’ words are true, but men have misunderstood it, not knowing that there are three churches, not just one. Acts 7:38 KJV refers to the Passover church under Moses, calling it “the church in the wilderness.” Likewise, there is a Tabernacles church that will rule in the age to come, because the Pentecost church disqualified itself in the early tenth century.

Saul was disqualified in the 18^th year of his reign; the Pentecost church disqualified itself in the 18^th Jubilee of its reign. Each year in the reign of Saul represents a Jubilee cycle in the history of the Pentecost church.

The Jews in Jesus’ day thought that the Passover church would rule forever, but they were wrong. They disqualified themselves by rejecting the Messiah. When the right to rule was given to the Pentecost church, they too thought their kingdom would endure forever. They too were wrong. It requires the full anointing to succeed and to establish an enduring dynasty. This is what is being given to the Tabernacles church, under whose rule the Kingdom will grow until it fills the whole earth.

Daniel 2:35 describes this Kingdom as a great Stone, which “became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.” Daniel 2:44 interprets it this way:

⁴⁴ In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.

This is the final church and the final “kingdom.” It is established after the Pentecost Age has run its course. It is established also when the beast kingdoms have been destroyed. These beast empires have been ruling since the days of Nebuchadnezzar and are only now collapsing.

The Controversies

The house of Saul obviously disagreed with David’s divine right to rule Israel. For this reason, when Saul died, his son Ish-bosheth succeeded him and reigned two years (2 Samuel 2:10). So it is no surprise to see that the house of Pentecost refuses to recognize the overcomers’ right to rule. For this reason, the overcomers had to engage in many court battles for 7½ years before the house of David was fully empowered on November 30, 2000.

The same is true with the beast empires which have ruled since Nebuchadnezzar. They too have refused to step aside when their time expired in 2017. Hence, God is overthrowing them by spiritual warfare even now.

The Jews, too, want to rule the Kingdom from the earthly Jerusalem, but the divine court has already “cast out” Hagar (Galatians 4:30). Their plans will come to naught.

Two months after the house of David was fully empowered, the Pentecost church appealed its case to the divine court, claiming that the Pentecost kingdom retained an everlasting right to rule the Kingdom. God ruled in favor of the overcomers, as we will see, but the Pentecost church refused to accept this ruling. This resulted in another year of great spiritual warfare in 2001.

Nonetheless, the house of Joseph was rising, assisted by the house of David. This combination could not be defeated.

 

The Rise of the House Of David

 

THE RISE OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID, PART 16

By Dr. Stephen Jones

Blog Post Date:  4-24-2021

The Dragon War was primarily a war between Michael and the red dragon, as we see in Revelation 12:7. The two are what I call “natural enemies.” In other words, Michael is the angel who is called to overcome the red dragon, even as Peniel is called to overcome the Prince of Persia.

Michael is also the angel assigned to protect and fight for the tribe of Judah and the house of David—if they avail themselves of his strength. In the past, Judah fell into sin and corruption and so Michael turned against them and became their enemy (Isaiah 63:10). But in the end, the tabernacle of David was rebuilt, and the house of David overthrew the red dragon with the help of Michael.

The rise of the house of David from 1993-2000 was necessary to lay foundations for the rise of the house of Joseph/Ephraim. In long-term prophecy, we see this manifested with the two comings of Christ, who came the first time of Judah to claim the Scepter, and who is coming the second time of Joseph to claim the Birthright. Christ’s victory through death and resurrection—which is Michael’s venue—laid the necessary foundations for the second work of Christ through Peniel.

We see this pattern emerge once again in the shorter term at the end of the age. The house of David arose first to engage in spiritual warfare against the red dragon in the Dragon War of the late 1990’s. Michael’s ultimate victory allowed Peniel to begin the second phase of this Kingdom work after the turn of the century.

Looking ahead, we expect to see this sequence repeated in the short-term fulfillment of the feast days. When Michael stands up, the overcomers will stand up as they are raised from the dead (Daniel 12:1, 2). This will occur on the feast of Trumpets of some year, because the dead will be raised “at the last trumpet” (1 Corinthians 15:52), that is, the seventh trumpet, which is the first day of the seventh month.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 says that “the dead in Christ will rise first.” Hence, the feast of Trumpets is the first of the autumn feasts. Two weeks later, Peniel, the angel of Tabernacles, will “change” the living overcomers into the likeness of Christ, so that the two groups can be united fully as a single body.

Michael and Peniel make a great team! When their work is completed, the autumn feasts will be fulfilled, and the sons of God will be revealed (unveiled) to creation (Romans 8:19) in the ages to come.

We also see that Michael was assigned primarily to Judah and the house of David, while Peniel was assigned to Ephraim and the house of Joseph.

3000^th Year of David’s Rule (1996)

The Israeli government passed a bill in 1993 calling for a celebration in 1996 marking the 3000^th anniversary of the crowning of King David in 1004 B.C.

https://mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfa-archive/1993/pages/jerusalem%203000-%20city%20of%20david%201996.aspx

The timing of this agrees with the chronology that I set forth in Secrets of Time. We celebrated this by declaring the Jubilee, as I said earlier. The Israelis did not do so, for they were not called to do so, nor did they receive any revelation about this. Hence, their “Statement of Purpose” at the end of the article above says nothing about declaring a Jubilee.

The Israeli Jubilee (1998)

The Israelis did attempt to celebrate a partial Jubilee two years later in 1998, which was the 50^th anniversary of statehood (1948-1998). They kept their Jubilee by cutting the sentences of some jailed Palestinians by ten percent, as long as they had already completed 60 percent of their sentences. This affected about 800 prisoners.

By way of contrast, a biblical Jubilee was supposed to cancel all debt so that every man could return to his family and property. This is true grace, whereas the “Jubilee Amnesty” of the Israelis was very limited in scope and only reduced their debt by ten percent.

Even so, Scripture shows that God gives men credit for any good that they may do. I discerned that their ten percent extension of grace would be credited to them as well when Jeremiah’s prophecy of the final destruction of Jerusalem takes place. It appears that God will spare a “tithe” of ten percent.

The revelation of 1998 centered around the idea of doing things God’s way. Though most people continued to do things their own way, the house of David focused on doing things God’s way.

The 32^nd Super Bowl (January 25, 1998)

The Super Bowls have been known to contain prophetic signs of the times. Some have followed these signs closely each year. The 32^nd Super Bowl was played while I was in Australia on a teaching tour, but I heard about it later.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/broncos-win-super-bowl-xxxii/

John Elway led the Denver Broncos to a 31-24 victory over the Green Bay Packers. El is Hebrew for God, so Elway means “God’s way.”

A few months later, on the Israeli Jubilee (May 14, 1998), Frank Sinatra died. He was best known for his 1968 song, My Way. Sinatra was Italian but also Jewish, which links his death to the Israeli Jubilee.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/frank-sinatra-dies

Round Two of the Dragon War (1998)

The second round of the Dragon War showed the conflict between God’s Way and My Way. This built upon the previous theme in 1997, where we established New Covenant marriage. In other words, the Old Covenant does things by the power of man’s will, while the New Covenant does things by the power of God’s will (John 1:13).

Round two of the Dragon War can be understood only by those who study and believe Paul’s exposition in Galatians 4. There we learn that Abraham had two wives. Hagar was a bondwoman corresponding to Mount Sinai and the earthly Jerusalem. Sarah was a freewoman corresponding to the heavenly Jerusalem and, by extension, Mount Sion, where Jesus was transfigured.

The disagreement between Hagar and Sarah and the resulting conflict between their sons has continued for thousands of year from the time of Abraham to the present day. It is not merely a conflict between Arabs and Jews, as so many think. It is a conflict between the two covenants and biblical salvation. Which covenant has the calling to save us? Is it by man’s will or by God’s will? Is it flesh or spirit? Who are the seed of Abraham, those with fleshly genealogy or those who have the faith of Abraham that is defined in Romans 4:20, 21, 22?

²⁰ Yet, with respect to the promise of God, he [Abraham] did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, ²¹ and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform. ²² Therefore it was also credited to him as righteousness.

Man’s way is to be saved by deciding by the power of his own will to follow God. This can succeed only if the person is able to fulfill his vow. The problem is that “all have sinned” (Romans 3:23), and this includes those who decide to follow Jesus.

God has another plan for salvation—one that actually works. It is based on the New Covenant, which is God’s promise to mankind. Those who believe that God is “able also to perform” or fulfill His promise confess that they have placed no confidence in the flesh. This is Abrahamic faith, and it is one of the keys to being the true seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:7) and an overcomer as well.

The conflict between the son of Sarah and the son of Hagar is an “allegory,” Paul says, which manifests an age-old dispute as to who is truly called to bring the blessing of Abraham to all families of the earth.

The sons of Hagar are those who base their salvation on the Old Covenant, that is, their own decisions/vows to follow Christ. The sons of Sarah are those who base their salvation on the New Covenant, having faith that God is able to fulfill His promise.

Hagar’s children include those who claim that the earthly Jerusalem is their mother and the mother of the church as a whole. Such people promote Jerusalem as the capital of the Kingdom and that a physical temple with Levitical priests and animal sacrifices will be reinstated in the age to come.

Sarah’s children claim the heavenly Jerusalem as their mother (Galatians 4:26, 28), believing that Hagar-Jerusalem must be “cast out” (Galatians 4:30) and that Jeremiah’s prophecy will be fulfilled (Jeremiah 19:10, 11).

All of this came to center stage in 1998, as I will soon show.

 

Impeached or Not!!

HOUSE DEMOCRATS VOTE TO IMPEACH TRUMP

By Dr. Stephen Jones:  Dec 19, 2019

Blog Post Date: 12-20-2019

Here is the final result of last night’s impeachment vote.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/18/us/politics/trump-impeachment-vote.html

It was essentially a partisan vote, with all Republicans voting “no” and all but 2 or 3 Democrats voting “yes.”

A High Standard for Impeachment

This was precisely the nightmarish situation that our founders tried to avoid. First, they set the standard very high so as to make only very serious crimes like treason and bribery worthy of impeachment.

Article II, Section 4 reads:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Treason itself was defined in Article III, Section 3,

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Even murder is not an impeachable offense, since not even a congressman could be charged with murder if it were done on the floor of the House. (Believe it or not!) The biggest weakness of this provision comes over the definition of “Enemies.” This is why Congress insists on defining Russia as an “Enemy.” It was also behind the “Trading With the Enemies Act" of 1919 and its extension in 1933, when it defined all US citizens as “enemies.” This has allowed the new Socialist “Democracy” and their intelligence agencies opportunity to subvert the constitution’s intent and to enslave and oppress the people.

Article IV, Section 4 reads:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.

Apparently, this was later interpreted to mean that the United States itself (federal government) was allowed to change itself into a Democracy. Only the individual states themselves were guaranteed a Republican form of government.

Division of Power: House and Senate

Our founders split up the power by giving the House the power to draw up Articles of Impeachment. Article I, Section 2 says,

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

In 1813 the Judiciary Committee was established and was given the power to do any impeachment investigations. This was largely breached in 2019 when Speaker Pelosi assigned the House Intelligence Committee, under Adam Schiff, to hold the hearings. Only when these were completed was this passed on to the Judiciary Committee under Jerry Nadler to give it the appearance of legitimacy.

The White House and Republican House members saw this unprecedented rule change as an abuse of power. But since the Constitution itself did not say anything about which particular committee was supposed to call for such hearings, the Democrats were able to use this loophole for their own partisan advantage.

Other rule changes, however, were more problematic, as they did not allow the participation of White House lawyers, nor did they give Republicans the right to call their own witnesses. This caused Trump to refuse to allow any of his cabinet members to testify, invoking executive privilege, which has since been upheld by the courts.

Nonetheless, all but three of the House Democrats voted to impeach Trump on the grounds of “Obstruction.” It is not likely that this charge will be validated by the courts.

The founders also gave the Senate the sole power to try the case, and even this was to be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to limit partisanship and ensure that all is done in a Constitutional manner. This is found in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

This Constitutional provision was another attempt to limit partisanship in the event that the party controlling the House did not like a president from an opposing party. Yesterday’s impeachment vote shows the wisdom of this provision, although the Democrats are trying to spin this as Republican partisanship in the Senate.

What the House Democrats have done is to set a precedent, whereby any time in the future, when a president from one party does anything that the House majority party dislikes, it is guaranteed that the House will impeach him. This breakdown in our federal government, if not corrected immediately, could mean that the House will always spend more time impeaching than in legislating. This would subvert the very purpose of congress.

Fortunately, our founders foresaw such possible problems and split power between the House and Senate. The partisanship of the House Democrats has put the Senate Republicans in the mood to engage in the same partisan behavior in return. It would be better to treat the Articles of Impeachment seriously, just to avoid such a partisan precedent.

Two Articles of Impeachment

Even though the House Democrats, at the beginning, charged Trump with treason and bribery over his telephone call with the Ukrainian president last July, those charges were mysteriously dropped when the Articles of Impeachment were actually drawn up. The Articles charged the president with (1) Abuse of power, and (2) Obstruction of Congress.

Article 1

“Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage.

This is based solely on Trump’s use of the word “us” when he asked Zelensky to “help us out” in investigating possible crimes committed by Joe Biden (while he was Vice President). Though the context in the transcript shows quite clearly that he was referring to “us” as the USA itself, the Democrats chose to interpret “us” as Trump’s re-election campaign.

If the president had actually meant “us” in the way that the Democrats took it, why was he so eager to release the telephone transcript? Surely he would have known better! This Impeachment Article relies upon an unintended interpretation of a single word, which, at best, was obscure. No “witnesses” (by their own admission in the hearings) had any first-hand knowledge of any crime. The only reason they were allowed to testify was because the House Democrats changed the rules to allow hearsay.

The main whistleblower’s identity was concealed in order to hide the fact that he was one of Adam Schiff’s own office staff. Another’s testimony was what he read in the New York Times. By those standards, I could have qualified as a witness, too! It was surreal and little more than a circus to entertain their constituents.

Even if Trump had done exactly what the Democrats have charged, it would hardly rise to the level of treason or bribery, in spite of these claims. But all previous presidential impeachments have failed because their impeachment articles have not risen to the level needed to actually impeach a president.

Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1865 for firing his Secretary of War, even though any president has the right to fire a cabinet member. Clinton was impeached for his use of the word “is” when giving false testimony about his sex life in the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky. Nixon resigned before impeachment for spying on the Democrats in the Watergate scandal, but even that hardly rises to the high levels of Treason and Bribery that the founders intended.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/an-impeachment-role-for-the-supreme-court/

Pelosi’s Delaying Tactic

Now that the impeachment vote has been taken, Nancy Pelosi is now considering a new tactic. She is thinking of burying the Articles of Impeachment instead of passing them off to the Senate for trial. Here is an article that speculates on her political reasons:

https://ncrenegade.com/editorial/a-possibility-which-i-do-not-want-to-consider/

No one questions the political prowess of Nancy Pelosi. So what was the purpose of impeaching a President if she knows it will be dismissed in the Senate? What if she does not submit the impeachment request to the Senate until after Donald Trump is reelected? At that point, she could claim that his election was invalid because he was still under a pending House impeachment….

If this premise is correct and the 2020 re-election of Trump is thrown into question, who will be in charge until this is resolved? After the expiration of Trump’s first term in January, both Trump and Pence would not hold office. The Constitution then appoints the Speaker of the House to be President.

Would she really try to become president in that way? Could she do so without causing a civil war? Probably not. The article below tells us why:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/18/pollak-senate-can-acquit-even-if-house-doesnt-transmit-articles-of-impeachment-constitution/

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appears to be considering an idea Democrats have floated for several days of holding back the articles of impeachment to exercise leverage over the Senate and the president.

She declined formally to transmit the articles to the Senate on Wednesday evening after the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump.

Unfortunately for them, the Senate can act, regardless — and would vote to acquit.

That’s because the Constitution is absolutely clear about the Senate’s authority. Article I, Section 3 says: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

That is all….

If Pelosi refuses to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, McConnell can convene the Senate anyway, summon the Chief Justice, and swear in the Senators as jurors. Democrats can boycott, but they can’t stop the trial.

McConnell can then propose to dismiss the charges or even hold a vote to acquit the president.

Pelosi can hide the articles of impeachment in Adam Schiff’s basement forever, and it won’t make a bit of difference.

Case closed.

What a mess we are in! Who could have guessed how the Babylonians would thrash around as their beloved Babylon collapses before their eyes. It is a painful process, but we need to view these events as evidence of the end of an age and the end of a long-standing rule of the beast empires in Daniel 7.

There is no need to fear, since God will do what He will do, regardless of what men do and regardless of our opinions of what God is doing. We may misunderstand everything, but this will have little or no effect on the outcome of the divine plan.

TRUMP IS NOT YET IMPEACHED OFFICIALLY

Dec 20, 2019

This is one for the Supreme Court, no doubt.

Although the House Democrats voted to impeach president Trump on December 18, Nancy Pelosi has refused to make it official by presenting the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial. Does that mean Trump is yet under no impeachment restrictions?

In the past, the House has always presented the paperwork to the Senate promptly, and until the trial has ended with an acquittal, the president has not been allowed to sign anything into law nor to appoint anyone to political or judicial positions.

But what happens when the Speaker of the House refuses to follow through and to make the impeachment official?

Speaker Pelosi’s stated motive is that she wants first to see the rules for the impending trial that Senate leader, Mitch McConnel, will establish. What? Is she trying to negotiate with the Senate to make rules that favor her own interests? What if McConnell had done this last summer when the House made up its own rules for the investigation?

Would not that be classed as interference? What gives the Speaker of the House any authority to influence what the Senate does?

McConnell does not seem to be in any mood to cave to Pelosi’s interference. In fact, it seems likely that the Senate does not even need to be given those Articles of impeachment to hold a trial. If that is the case, Pelosi has no power to delay that trial.

Since this is unprecedented in US history, it seems likely that this question will have to be decided by the Supreme Court, along with the very legality and constitutionality of the House’s impeachment itself. In other words, by refusing to allow Trump’s witnesses and lawyers to defend him or to question his accusers, as was always allowed in the past, did the House violate his constitutional rights?

If this goes to the Supreme Court, they may nullify the impeachment altogether.

The point is, there has been a lot of prophecy in the past saying, “Trump will never be impeached.” I have questioned this statement, because it calls into question the definition of impeachment. Do these prophecies apply to the House impeaching Trump, or to the Senate convicting him?

Pelosi has brought up a third scenario by her unprecedented political antics. It might be that even though the House votes for impeachment, it will never become official, either because the paperwork will never be given to the Senate, or because the Supreme Court will nullify it.

It may be, too, that Pelosi is trying to make it impossible for Trump to appoint a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is said to be in serious ill health. She does not want to retire, because her replacement would no doubt have a different legal philosophy. The Supreme Court could be turned “conservative” for a generation.

SOMETHING BIG IS COMING

Dec 20, 2019

The day after the House voted to impeach the president, Q posted on December 19 in Post #3728,

POTUS was not harmed in any way today other than on paper (history books).
Sometimes you must sacrifice yourself for the greater good.
“I will gladly take all those slings and arrows for you.” – POTUS
But, even that, can be undone.
The enormity of what is coming will SHOCK THE WORLD.
Pray.
Q

Q seems confident that this impeachment vote came as no surprise but was actually planned for and accounted for ahead of time.

I’m not sure what he means by: “But, even that, can be undone.”

If he means that the impeachment vote can be undone, then this either means that the Senate can simply acquit POTUS, or perhaps this suggests that Pelosi may never actually submit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Then, too, the Supreme Court might rule that the House violated the constitutional rights of POTUS.

There is nothing to do but grab some popcorn, sit back, and “watch the show,” as Q often says.

In Post #3738, dated December 19, Q follows up by posting an article about how Admiral Rogers disclosed FISA abuse in March of 2016 shortly after it happened. He posted,

https://www.theepochtimes.com/nsa-director-rogers-disclosed-fisa-abuse-days-after-carter-page-fisa-was-issued_2692033.html

Something BIG is coming.
Q

This could very well hint that the “BIG” event soon to come will involve the ex-FBI director, James Comey, or “James 8. Corney” as one official DOJ document calls him. (See 3^rd paragraph on the report at the link below.)

https://search.justice.gov/search?query=corney&op=Search&affiliate=justice

This “typo” is obviously intentional, but by whom is unclear. It is meant to be read: James ate corn and refers to earlier Q drops that picture cornfields and ripened corn.

Corn that is ripe for harvesting and eating is the DOJ code for arresting James Comey.

Will the Comey Report be released? I do not think that he will be arrested and charged officially prior to the release of the report investigating him. That is why I think the “BIG” event that Q anticipates has to do with the Comey report itself. But I may be wrong. Who knows?