Once again he does a VERY BAD THING! He BREACHED NATIONAL SECURITY just to "put Nancy Pelosi in her place". REALLY?

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. READ THE QUESTION AGAIN. She is SECOND IN SUCCESSION. You do understand what that means do you not m2c. Read it again. SECOND IN SUCCESSION MEANS after the first in succession which is Pence. You are so anxious to find fault with everything you don't take the time to  READ IT CAREFULLY FIRST. Why is that?

I was wrong I will correct. My apologies. 

Hello my2cents
I didn't see your unedited response, but you are not wrong, except that the 3 branches are not equal, they are separate with their own set of powers, if they were all equal there would be no need for separate branches..
The Speaker, while in the line of succession, does not have equal powers of the President...just the house has powers the President cannot exercise. 
Pelosi's role is setting the agenda of the house and some procedural powers. 
For Rosie to suggest the Speaker has equal power of that of the President is, how did she put it....WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

The powers of our federal (national) government are divided into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. The branches are separate but equal.

https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-content/three-branches-separate-equal/

Please immediately convey to Scholastic that the literacy resources for kids and children's books that it has been delivering to schools, teachers, and families for more than 90 years contain grievous errors.

Can the Speaker, or the House or Senate serve as Commander and Chief of the Military, or commission officers, or grant reprisals and pardons for federal offenses, or receive ambassadors, or wield the executive powers, 
Can the Judicial Branch set budgets or make law
Can the President vote on Congressional issues...Doesn't sound like a case of "equal" to me
"Separate but equal" is not found in the constitution as it pertains to the branches of government..
Each branch has different powers and duties and serve as a device for checks and balances to the other branches, in fact Madison wrote in the Federalist papers about the impossibility of equality of the departments (branches) of government in defense of themselves...
Furthermore, if the branches were equal in power then why is almost the entirety of the federal court system (Judiciary) a creature of Congress, and can be restructured or abolished at any time, another case of "equality"?
"Separate but equal" was a legal construct as it referred to civil rights... see Plessy v. Ferguson...
And I will take our Constitution over some scholastic writing that is not based in law...
My comment was in reference to the questioners statement that the Speaker has power equal to the President, which is NOT based in truth, or constitutionality... 

Take it up with Scholastic.  If you are going to make a statement that uses words in a different contest than usual, define them. 

Giuliani continues to confuse everyone, including himself.  Let's not add to the problem and confuse the elementary and junior high students.

Equal...the same as...as in the amount, stature or ability.
I think that is a common definition of the word

I think Pelosi just schooled Trump on the equality issue. 

Equality is a word in context---you are muddying the waters.  Article III of the Constitution provides that there shall be one Supreme Court  and (not or) such inferior courts as Congress may "ordain and establish." The Judiciary Act of 1789 formally established the Supreme Court and federal court system (uscourts.gov). 

Hello again Tom...
You write that as if I suggested otherwise to what you pasted for me. That is pretty much what my previous comment said, that congress has the power to ordain and establish "almost the entirety of the federal court system". . My point was that there is an inequity of power in a system where one branch ordains, and establishes and appoints it's members to a unlimited term when the other 2 branches are voted in by the citizenry to limited terms. I agree the constitution requires 1 supreme court, what if Congress did not feel it necessary to establish an inferior court,
"may ordain and establish" (not MUST, SHALL) 
Congress has powers, that again, "almost the entirety of the federal court system" does not have, not 'the same as', the federal court system cannot appoint Representative and Senators to their terms... On the "schooled" comment, I think the Presidents latest response was gracious and represents how 'the student has turned into the master'.

Mommy told the toddler he had to stay out of the house---he was not welcome to come in.

Toddler pooped his pants and ran home.

And you think that demonstrates graciousness and finesse---??????.

De gustibus non est disputandum

This will be my last response on this thread.

Now you not only have eased my mind, you make me excited to think you are willing to correct any error you post.