Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 79,551
- 58,548
- 3,565
Now you are being silly
Trump and his allies are quietly “plotting” to “deploy the U.S. Military to quell potential unrest on Inauguration Day” if Trump wins in 2024.
- Thread starter Lakhota
- Start date
kyzr
Diamond Member
There is no evidence. Got any indictment or conviction for anything?????
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 25,212
- 21,210
- 2,320
"Those things" being impeachable offenses.
martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 93,459
- 43,702
- 2,300
I'm talking about the ones that didn't resign.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
Nope it's the revenge tour deal with it
martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 93,459
- 43,702
- 2,300
They were disagreeing with Trumps politics and policies, and lied about their reasoning.
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 25,212
- 21,210
- 2,320
I didn't accuse him of breaking the law. But it causes me to ask, why is it that you folks find yourselves defending so many people associated with Trump by asking that question?
The question at hand was Matt's legitimacy to serve as acting AG. He had none.
Last edited:
martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 93,459
- 43,702
- 2,300
Not even close. Only in the minds of prog twats like you.
postman
Diamond Member
- Feb 23, 2017
- 21,751
- 12,514
- 1,400
Only lawful orders have to be followed. This is what the Manual for Courts-Martial says about the lawfulness of orders:
(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the subordinate’s peril. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.
(ii) Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.
(iii) Authority of issuing officer. The commissioned officer issuing the order must have authority to give such an order. Authorization may be based on law, regulation, custom of the Service, or applicable order to direct, coordinate, or control the duties, activities, health, welfare, morale, or discipline of the accused.
(iv) Relationship to military duty. The order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the Service. The order may not, without such a valid military purpose, interfere with private rights or personal affairs. However, the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order. Disobedience of an order which has for its sole object the attainment of some private end, or which is given for the sole purpose of increasing the penalty for an offense which it is expected the accused may commit, is not punishable under this article.
(v) Relationship to statutory or constitutional rights. The order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order.
A few points leap out. What is a patently illegal order? This an order that “a person of ordinary sense and understanding” would know to be unlawful. That was the test set by the then-Court of Military Appeals (now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) in the case of Army First Lieutenant William L. Calley Jr., who was convicted in connection with the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. An order to shoot to kill unarmed civilians or perform some other act that is itself criminal would qualify,
Wrestling with Legal and Illegal Orders in the Military in the Months Ahead
Given what we’ve witnessed over the last few months, armed forces should critically review their training for both judge advocates and commanders.
www.justsecurity.org
postman
Diamond Member
- Feb 23, 2017
- 21,751
- 12,514
- 1,400
Like the 9 UNELECTED justices on the US Supreme Court do?
That phrase is both trite and wrong.
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 25,212
- 21,210
- 2,320
Deal with it? You're acknowledging Trump's candidacy is about a revenge tour and that's OK with you? Is satisfying his desire for retribution more important than the country?
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
You leftists brought this shit on yourself. Taking a page from the leftist handbook and you don't like it fuck off
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 25,212
- 21,210
- 2,320
You're talking, but you aren't saying anything.
- Jul 27, 2021
- 60,865
- 73,075
- 3,488
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 25,212
- 21,210
- 2,320
Enforcing the rule of law demands retribution? Since when?
SeaMajor7
Diamond Member
It's going to be FOR THE COUNTRY that you fucking demented communist assholes are destroying, SHITberg!!!!!
Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 79,551
- 58,548
- 3,565
Sounds like the Deep State tail was wagging the dog
trump missed a great opportunity to clean house when he didnt call their bluff
postman
Diamond Member
- Feb 23, 2017
- 21,751
- 12,514
- 1,400
The strange part is that what Trump is proposing is clearly illegal. But Trump will say that if the people elected him anyway, then it's o.k. because the majority voted for it.
kyzr
Diamond Member
1. Holder's legitimacy to be AG was being Obama's "wingman"?
2. Garland's legitimacy for being AG is to protect the Biden's from prosecution? Like Hunter's sweetheart deal that fell thru, and Joe's crimes being covered up, and the FBI interfering in the 2020 election?
Matt is 1,000,000x more legit than Holder or Garland.
GMCGeneral
Diamond Member
Hey, it's how we fought against the British to found this country in the first place, dumbass. And no, it wasn't an insurrection. But I bet you would support it if your team tried to pull this, and they did as a matter of fact.
Similar threads
