Former high ranking military members put Trump's threat in context.

[berg80]

Your side has no credibility as your own have done Way worse and nothing was done.

Way worse than committing crimes during and after a presidential tenure and then seeking immunity for those crimes by virtue of a baseless claim?

 

[Muhammed]

​

So, what's it going to be? How are defenders of all things Trump going to throw these former military personnel under the bus?

The President has plenary authority over all classification of documents. Period.

Those former military officers/traitors who disagree should not be thrown under bus. They should be thrown under a tank, thrown out of a helicopter, or keel hulled, depending on thier branch of service.

 

[ColonelAngus]

FORMER HIGH RANKING MILITARY?

Why cant these faceless people just say it?

Maybe because it is bullshit and they have a political axe to grind?

Cult, we dont GAF about the credentials of your liars.

 

[berg80]

The Constitution subjects the armed forces of the United States to civilian control and the rule of law. These limits on the military are bedrock features of our democracy and are deeply rooted in our nation’s history. From the Founding to the present day, a steadfast commitment to these principles has successfully guided us through two world wars and numerous other conflicts; provided the stability needed for our democratic republic to flourish; and ensured that the military has the capacity to defend our nation by being trained and ready to fight and win its wars.

Petitioner’s theory of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution is an assault on these foundational commitments. The notion of such immunity, both as a general matter, and also specifically in the context of the potential negation of election results, threatens to jeopardize our nation’s security and international leadership. Particularly in times like the present, when anti-democratic, authoritarian regimes are on the rise worldwide, such a threat is intolerable and dangerous.

Anti-democratic, authoritarian regimes like the one Trump wants.

 

[elektra]

They were explaining the conflict officers would face between following orders from an unaccountable CIC and following the law. I guess it was too complicated for you.

No, it was not too complicated. You did not read the brief. The brief states, that they, the officers, are required to disobey lawful orders? There is already in the UCMJ, the order, not to commit crimes if ordered to do so. From your brief.

Too complicated? I am reading and quoting from the link you gave. It seems you are the one having a problem grasping what you linked to.

The service members are already required to disobey unlawful orders? So how is it that the court must rule Trump is not immune, to save the military from anarchy? By law, the UCMJ, there is a duty to disobey.

That service members are required to disobey unlawful orders is commonly known as the “duty to disobey.”

 

[berg80]

The President has plenary authority over all classification of documents. Period.

Everyone knows that. The thing is, Trump is on tape admitting he showed classified docs to a person not authorized to see them. AND, he defied a subpoena for the return of the docs he stole.

 

[elektra]

Amici are deeply interested in this case because presidential immunity from criminal prosecution would threaten the military’s role in American society, our nation’s constitutional order, and our national security.

Yet, built into the military, are rules, regulations, laws, preventing the military from commiting crimes.

That service members are required to disobey unlawful orders is commonly known as the “duty to disobey.”

 

[berg80]

No, it was not too complicated. You did not read the brief. The brief states, that they, the officers, are required to disobey lawful orders? There is already in the UCMJ, the order, not to commit crimes if ordered to do so. From your brief.

Too complicated? I am reading and quoting from the link you gave. It seems you are the one having a problem grasping what you linked to.

The service members are already required to disobey unlawful orders? So how is it that the court must rule Trump is not immune, to save the military from anarchy? By law, the UCMJ, there is a duty to disobey.

Since you are having difficulty comprehending the point they are making, and I can't increase your IQ, I can't help you. Sorry.

 

[elektra]

They were explaining the conflict officers would face between following orders from an unaccountable CIC and following the law. I guess it was too complicated for you.

Yet, the officers state in the brief, that they will not follow an unlawful order?

That service members are required to disobey unlawful orders is commonly known as the “duty to disobey.”

 

[berg80]

Yet, built into the military, are rules, regulations, laws, preventing the military from commiting crimes.

See post #24.

 

[berg80]

Yet, the officers state in the brief, that they will not follow an unlawful order?

Petitioner’s theory that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution, if accepted, has the potential to severely undermine the Commander-in-Chief’s legal and moral authority to lead the military forces, as it would signal that they but not he must obey the rule of law.

 

[elektra]

If you think you gain any credibility for your opinion because of a claim you're a vet you'd be wrong about that too. BTW, if you really are a vet, thanks for your service.

I dont need thanks for more service, I do not appreciate thanks for my service, it always sounds hollow, contrived, fake.

Being a veteran gives me knowledge that a non-veteran may not have. One, being I have been taught what is in the UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice. I know, despite what the leaders order, I can not go out and kill or overthrow the government, just because a superior orders me to.

So yes, being a Veteran gives me much credibility, in the knowledge of following orders, and the code the military lives by.

How about the Code of Conduct, are these political generals and admirals claiming the Code of Conduct gets thrown away? Responsible for my actions? You mean, I could be prosecuted, be held responsible for following unlawful orders?

Article VI:
I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

 

[elektra]

Anti-democratic, authoritarian regimes like the one Trump wants.

yet, we did not face any crisis when Trump was in office? Why is that? Trump obeyed every ruling that the Supreme Court gave. Trump ceded to the State's authority?

Anti-democratic, would be Democrats not upholding the law, as in the illegal alien invasion, of millions of people crossing our border.

 

[berg80]

So yes, being a Veteran gives me much credibility, in the knowledge of following orders, and the code the military lives by.

Everyone understands that, including all the signatories to the amicus brief.

 

[elektra]

Petitioner’s theory that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution, if accepted, has the potential to severely undermine the Commander-in-Chief’s legal and moral authority to lead the military forces, as it would signal that they but not he must obey the rule of law.

yet, the brief you provide, gives two examples as to why this will not happen

The only solution they offer is the unfounded prediction that military officers and officials would defy presidential orders to commit crimes

That service members are required to disobey unlawful orders is commonly known as the “duty to disobey."

And of course, we have the Code of Conduct and the Uniform Military Code of Justice. These Political Generals and Admirals, are claiming do not exist?

 

[elektra]

Since you are having difficulty comprehending the point they are making, and I can't increase your IQ, I can't help you. Sorry.

the point they make is pure politics, based on conjecture

The military Code of Conduct, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Convention, does not go away if the president excercises presidential immunity.

A specious brief, at best.

 

[berg80]

the point they make is pure politics, based on conjecture

The military Code of Conduct, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Convention, does not go away if the president excercises presidential immunity.

A specious brief, at best.

Should I assume your discomfort with these former military leaders speaking out about the damage presidential immunity would do to the military means you think Trump's claim has merit?

 

[Invisibleflash]

Former top military officers push back on Trump immunity claim​

More than a dozen retired four-star generals, admirals and other former military leaders filed an amicus brief with in the Supreme Court on Monday, arguing against former President Trump’s claims of immunity in his criminal cases.

The group said Trump’s claims “would threaten the military’s role in American society, our nation’s constitutional order, and our national security,” and would have a “profoundly negative effects on military service members.”
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...y-officers-push-back-on-trump-immunity-claim/

So, what's it going to be? How are defenders of all things Trump going to throw these former military personnel under the bus? Will they be accused of being part of the fictitious deep state, or Dems, or never Trumper's? In what way will their concerns be dismissed as civil society mobilizes to prevent a takeover of the levers of power in ways previously thought unimaginable?

Military??

They were our last line of defense. Are they stopping the invasion?

 

[Muhammed]

Everyone knows that. The thing is, Trump is on tape admitting he showed classified docs to a person not authorized to see them. AND, he defied a subpoena for the return of the docs he stole.

You're a fucking lying bitchboy. Trump did not steal any documents, moron.

 

[22lcidw]

"So, what's it going to be? How are defenders of all things Trump going to throw these former military personnel under the bus?"

Got it. You don't like the idea that as experienced military leaders they see peril in the notion of a prez being able to do anything he/she damn pleases without regard for accountability or legal exposure. Their goal is to ensure the protection of the country. Trump's goal is the protection of himself. See the difference?

Soldiers follow orders. We spend so much though and the corruption of the military/industrial complex has put the safety of the nation in peril. We should have at least another hundred naval vessels active. And at 100% from design doing its purpose. Instead we are struggling in different classes of those ships and getting the most out of each of them. This is just the Navy branch and we have not even gotten into the F 35 and issues landing on the hugest Aircraft Carriers.