FBI scheduling interviews with 6 lawmakers who encouraged military members to refuse 'illegal orders'

[Delldude]

All comments are through proper channels. You do not just walk up and ask a soldier or sailor their opinion. They are trained to keep their mouth shut. Don't you know that?

And you don't think the Seditious Six conspiracy didn't consider that?

I was once interviewed by a local news station about anti-nuclear protests that happened when my ship was in Spain. When I declined to comment, guess whose interview was scrubbed from their broadcast?

That's a no brainer......you weren't interviewed.

 

[Marener]

I never said they had to enforce the law, but providing safe harbor and not cooperating with federal law enforcement is a clear violation of the Supremacy Clause. Again, you guys don’t care about the law, you just want things YOUR way.

Nope. No one, including state and local governments, is required to assist the federal government in enforcement of federal law without a court order.

The president has the authority, and in fact the obligation, to protect the US. That is where he gets the authority.

The president doesn’t have unlimited authority. He can’t declare war. Clearly the framers didn’t want the president using the military any way he sees fit.

Your answer is vague and meaningless. Want to try again?

 

[struth]

How is simply reminding servicemembers of the UCMJ and the oath they took to the U.S. Constitution even a problem? This could only cause a mutiny if illegal orders are given.

At no point did they mention the UCMJ, they claimed the military was being pitted against American citizens and Americans don't trust them, and they need to refuse orders they feel are illegal.

This is a clear attempt at sedition.

 

[struth]

Nope. No one, including state and local governments, is required to assist the federal government in enforcement of federal law without a court order.



The president doesn’t have unlimited authority. He can’t declare war. Clearly the framers didn’t want the president using the military any way he sees fit.

Your answer is vague and meaningless. Want to try again?

The President has authority to respond to the imminent threat posed by terrorist, iassociated forces, arising from his constitutional responsibility to protect the ountry, the inherent right of the United States to national self defense under internationallaw,

 

[SweetTea]

Nope. No one, including state and local governments, is required to assist the federal government in enforcement of federal law without a court order.

And the federal government has the right to enter the state/city and enforce the law. Impeding that enforcement is against the law and Democratic states and cities are guilty of this.

The president doesn’t have unlimited authority. He can’t declare war. Clearly the framers didn’t want the president using the military any way he sees fit.

I never said he had unlimited authority, but he has very broad authority. He also has the obligation to protect the US from domestic and foreign threats.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, but Marener doesn’t care about that. He/she just wants the military to do as they are told by the Democratic Party, not the President or their superiors.

Partisan bigots are like that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It definitely is. Shouting "Don't commit Crime!" is not treason outside the MAGA madhouse.

I see you continue to choose to not understand the issue here.

 

[dudmuck]

What illegal orders?

 

[M14 Shooter]

.... they claimed the military was being pitted against American citizens...

... and they have a duty to not obey unlawful orders.
Which "unlawful orders" are they talking about?
The orders under which the military is used to support federal law enforcement.
Except those orders are not unlawful.

 

[JohnDB]

Yeah and several of those recent investigations were several years in the making.

You just proved what I pointed out.

No....the prosecutor doesn't investigate. They just put charges to crimes and file paperwork. The FBI investigates. Doesn't mean crimes were not committed. It means something completely different.

Apparently Bondi can't competently control her office.
That's what it means.

 

[Marener]

And the federal government has the right to enter the state/city and enforce the law. Impeding that enforcement is against the law and Democratic states and cities are guilty of this.

Explain what cities have done to impede them.

I never said he had unlimited authority, but he has very broad authority. He also has the obligation to protect the US from domestic and foreign threats.

Your comment was vague enough to imply unlimited authority.

So the question remains, what legal authority does Trump have to kill drug runners in the Caribbean?

 

[struth]

... and they have a duty to not obey unlawful orders.
Which "unlawful orders" are they talking about?
The orders under which the military is used to support federal law enforcement.
Except those orders are not unlawful.

They have admitted that there isn't any unlawful orders

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Makes you wonder why these scumbags chose to make this partisan infomercial

They want a coup.

 

[struth]

Explain what cities have done to impede them.

Your comment was vague enough to imply unlimited authority.

So the question remains, what legal authority does Trump have to kill drug runners in the Caribbean?

Geez man, it's repeatedly been told you to, Art 2, Sect 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

No, they could simply decline to attend. They're not being arrested.

Still not a good look.

 

[Rogue AI]

,have you been paying attention to what is happening in the Courts? There have been several rulings that Trump's moves with the military/ National guards being called by Trump alone and put in States have been ruled unlawful...against the Posse Comitatus Act.

So Trump has attempted a few UNLAWFUL orders using military inside the USA, but the Courts have stopped him, so far....

How many of those rulings have been overturned? More than one. These seditious comments would support service members into disobeying what is in fact a lawful order. If there are legislative questions on the legality of presidential orders to the military the proper venue is a hearing in Congress, not some video.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

None of that protects them.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Agreed, but it is NOT illegal because the actually told the truth. Had they lied, it would be entirely different.

How do you explain the timing of the ad?

 

[Marener]

Still not a good look.

Sure it is. Refusing to be intimidated by an authoritarian like Trump is a good look.

 

[struth]

Sure it is. Refusing to be intimidated by an authoritarian like Trump is a good look.

Running away from a little interview sure makes them look scared.

Also when they already backed down and admitted there was no illegal orders.

They are just weak dembots trying to deflect from the fact they got nothing