It's amending something else, so to know what it's actually doing you'd need to look at "Section 3 of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (3 U.S.C. 102 note)" I'm looking at it right now to see about this whole thing. gimme a bit
EDIT: I've had a look at the document (not a lawyer, it's confusing as hell, may be wrong), and I'm not able to find anything that supports OP's claim here. It may well be buried reeeeal deep to throw anyone off it's trail, I may be wrong and blind, or it might not be in there at all. Try looking yourself here if you've got a good head on your shoulders. click notes and scroll down by a bit.
It's a gate to keep people out and dependant on legal experts. Unless you devote significant time to understanding legalese/jargon it's nearly impossible to decipher.
This is simply yet another example of people going entirely by whether something would be really cool and great narrative, and if so they believe it and/or post it. Facts to back up the claim are unneeded when they love the narrative. Facts which prove the opposite will be ignored or fought against.
Trump might be in control of the military. If he is, no one has found a publicly available document to show this. This one is most certainly not it.
How about people having evidence that supports their claim in the first place?
Sorry Patriot, when an OP posts claimed evidence that in no way says what he claims on it, then it's a fail, rather than "Ooooh what a cool narrative, let's go with that, maybe enough digging by someone other than OP will support it!"
I fear you are only deluding yourself if you refuse to realize that Biden is president. A puppet president and fraudulently installed but president no less. I also think the odds of him being forcibly removed by the military are near zero but Nancy and her cohorts will remove him within months and we will have to suffer through several years of a Harris presidency; yet another puppet This nightmare will not end quickly, peaceably, or easily. We face a decade of economic and civil chaos.
IMO, this is a stretch. I’ve never heard of any president maintaining control of the military after leaving office. The reference posted here, I believe, refers to the time an incoming administration’s transition team has to submit for reimbursement of transition expenses, not control of the military. Now, whether the military regards Trump as still the CINC is another matter altogether.
First of: by using legislation to amend previous legislation, it cuts back on the use of paper, but it makes a law totally incomprehensible. It leaves too much to mis-take and erroneous substitution.
Second: the 1963 Act does not speak to anything other than making available funds to set up a transition team, and the process of how the designated administrator is to render an account on how these funds are to be treated.
@Graveimage, @Anotheranon and others: I do support your view that there is nothing in the 1964 and in the 2020 transition funds laws to even hint at Trump retaining some kind of authority to direct the Military.
What we do know is that Presidential terms end at a certain time and date. Constitutionally, these times and dates are provided, but amended by law. I do have to read these provisions again to ascertain whether congress has the right to amend these without the proper constitutional processes: either a constitutional convention or sending proposed legislation to the several states legislatures and have them ratify it with a 2/3 majority of those states.
We also know Q wrote (Q953): Trump admin v2?
And we know, Trump still refers to him as President.
Something is up, that much is clear. Piecing it together is the game. But we sure as hell do not need hopium, but logical thinking.
Let's think back about the wall.
Q wrote it, being the issue of the means more than we would think. Maybe we should use items like these to teach ourselves what Q meant with expanding our thinking.
I haven't heard about this!!!! I mean we all knew Biden wasn't in charge, but I wasn't sure if Trump was in charge or if FEMA or the military were in charge. This is so interesting and is the purest hopium I could ever ask for.
I did not check all the legalese (because its 1AM and two glasses of holding the wine) but it seems legit. Good work. I both think and hope you are correct.
I just read the 6 pages in the link and I don’t see where it says the President retains control of the military.
It's amending something else, so to know what it's actually doing you'd need to look at "Section 3 of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (3 U.S.C. 102 note)" I'm looking at it right now to see about this whole thing. gimme a bit
EDIT: I've had a look at the document (not a lawyer, it's confusing as hell, may be wrong), and I'm not able to find anything that supports OP's claim here. It may well be buried reeeeal deep to throw anyone off it's trail, I may be wrong and blind, or it might not be in there at all. Try looking yourself here if you've got a good head on your shoulders. click notes and scroll down by a bit.
Thanks but reading that kind of stuff hurts my brain. I don’t know why legal documents can’t just be straight forward and to the point!
It's a gate to keep people out and dependant on legal experts. Unless you devote significant time to understanding legalese/jargon it's nearly impossible to decipher.
You are correct. Others seeing this.
You're not the only one. Lots have tried to fine that part and have come up empty-handed!
It doesn't say what the OP claims. At all.
This is simply yet another example of people going entirely by whether something would be really cool and great narrative, and if so they believe it and/or post it. Facts to back up the claim are unneeded when they love the narrative. Facts which prove the opposite will be ignored or fought against.
Trump might be in control of the military. If he is, no one has found a publicly available document to show this. This one is most certainly not it.
This isn't hopium, this is crapium.
It may be the wrong section. Keep diggjng
How about people having evidence that supports their claim in the first place?
Sorry Patriot, when an OP posts claimed evidence that in no way says what he claims on it, then it's a fail, rather than "Ooooh what a cool narrative, let's go with that, maybe enough digging by someone other than OP will support it!"
I already dug. This is 100% unsupported.
If you disagree, provide the sauce. Thank you.
Me neither but then most of it was incomprehensible to me.
I fear you are only deluding yourself if you refuse to realize that Biden is president. A puppet president and fraudulently installed but president no less. I also think the odds of him being forcibly removed by the military are near zero but Nancy and her cohorts will remove him within months and we will have to suffer through several years of a Harris presidency; yet another puppet This nightmare will not end quickly, peaceably, or easily. We face a decade of economic and civil chaos.
This is nonsense
IMO, this is a stretch. I’ve never heard of any president maintaining control of the military after leaving office. The reference posted here, I believe, refers to the time an incoming administration’s transition team has to submit for reimbursement of transition expenses, not control of the military. Now, whether the military regards Trump as still the CINC is another matter altogether.
Please provide ACTUAL proof of this. Because I think it 100% bullshit. Please prove me wrong.
Can't this junk be deleted so we don't have to sift through it?
First of: by using legislation to amend previous legislation, it cuts back on the use of paper, but it makes a law totally incomprehensible. It leaves too much to mis-take and erroneous substitution.
Second: the 1963 Act does not speak to anything other than making available funds to set up a transition team, and the process of how the designated administrator is to render an account on how these funds are to be treated.
@Graveimage, @Anotheranon and others: I do support your view that there is nothing in the 1964 and in the 2020 transition funds laws to even hint at Trump retaining some kind of authority to direct the Military.
What we do know is that Presidential terms end at a certain time and date. Constitutionally, these times and dates are provided, but amended by law. I do have to read these provisions again to ascertain whether congress has the right to amend these without the proper constitutional processes: either a constitutional convention or sending proposed legislation to the several states legislatures and have them ratify it with a 2/3 majority of those states.
We also know Q wrote (Q953): Trump admin v2?
And we know, Trump still refers to him as President.
Something is up, that much is clear. Piecing it together is the game. But we sure as hell do not need hopium, but logical thinking.
Let's think back about the wall.
Q wrote it, being the issue of the means more than we would think. Maybe we should use items like these to teach ourselves what Q meant with expanding our thinking.
You found it. Been trying to locate it I hD the name wrong. Thanks.
I haven't heard about this!!!! I mean we all knew Biden wasn't in charge, but I wasn't sure if Trump was in charge or if FEMA or the military were in charge. This is so interesting and is the purest hopium I could ever ask for.
I did not check all the legalese (because its 1AM and two glasses of holding the wine) but it seems legit. Good work. I both think and hope you are correct.