POTUS is 100% insulated - any discussion suggesting he’s even a target is false.
.
.
POTUS will not be addressing nation on any of these issues as people begin to be indicted and must remain neutral for pure optical reasons.
.
.
Focus on Military Intellingence/ State Secrets and why might that be used vs any three letter agency
.
.
Whate SC decision opened the door for a sitting President to activate - what must be showed?
”In Domestic Security Act (DSA) 6. U.S.C. §466 (2002) Congress further established that "Sense of Congress reaffirming the continued importance and applicability of the Posse Comitatus Act." §466(a)(1) provides "Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of any part of the Armed Forces as a posse comitatus to execute the laws," and (a)(4) and (5) provides: the exceptional circumstances are "when the use of the Armed Forces is authorized by Act of Congress or the President determines that the use of the Armed Forces is required to fulfill the President's obligation under the Constitution to respond promptly in time of war, insurrection, or other serious emergency" such as " an attack against the Nation using weapons of mass destruction." §466(b)” - Page 26-27 in link SC ruling from link below. 👇
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-5766/60675/20180824153156078_00000002.pdf
Why is POTUS surrounded by generals 👆🏼👆👆🏾
Don’t fool yourself into thinking Obama, Soros, Roth’s, Clinton’s etc have more power present day than POTUS.
Patriots are in control. Sit back and enjoy the show.
.
.
After the Constitution was ratified, Congress assembled and began exercising its legislative authority and began to permit the domestic use of the military. First, Congress authorized the President to call the militia to protect the frontier from “hostile incursions of the Indians.”31 Next, Congress enabled the militias to respond to invasion, insurrec- tion, and obstruction of the laws.32 These acts permitted the President to call forth the militia for a limited time, when “the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed . . .”33 The President had authority to act only after he issued a proclamation commanding the “insurgents” to disperse.34
https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=nslb
“In each of these instances, there was general support for using the military to enforce domestic law. However, each instance involved the President calling forth the military only with the approval of Congress. The military acted to enforce civilian law, but did so in sup- port of the civilian law enforcement, and did not supplant or usurp civilian authority. Therefore, the early leaders of America both under- stood the dangers posed by using the military as a domestic enforcer“
u/#q11
My theory: SC upheld this operation/trials as an State Secret and the Congress WASN’T informed.
Just scanned it, but this Dong case appears to set a precedent for ruling that the search-seizure at M-A-L was unconstitutional.
It will be interesting also to see if Sabatini's intention to repel the Fed overreach in Florida gains any traction.
Edit: https://greatawakening.win/p/15JAT5W9kw/state-rep-sabatini-declares-its-/c/
The Posse Comitatus Act outlaws the willful use of any part of the Army or Air Force to execute the law unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress. History supplies the grist for an argument that the Constitution prohibits military involvement in civilian affairs subject to only limited alterations by Congress or the President, but the courts do not appear to have ever accepted the argument unless violation of more explicit constitutional command could also be shown. The express statutory exceptions include the legislation that allows the President to use military force to suppress insurrection or to enforce federal authority, 10 U.S.C. Sections 251-255, and laws that permit the Department of Defense to provide federal, state and local police with information, equipment, and personnel, 10 U.S.C. §§ 271-284.
So, if I'm understanding this correctly, inre your highlighted section, the beasts would be trying to use the "enforce federal authority" part of that (with respect to alleged records-keeping procedures), but still it would need to be authorized by either Congress or the Potatus (the resident acting as the President), neither of which, to the best of our knowledge, occurred.
Edit: I have no idea what 10 U.S.C. Sections 251-255 cover.
Edit2: And in any case, it appears they've grossly overstepped their bounds by not involving state authorities and relegating themselves to a support role. In the Dong case he had to appeal all the way up to the SC. My guess is they'll toss Garland (or whoever signed off on this M-A-L raid) under the bus as they did the "rogue DCIS agent" in the Dong case.
This is in reference to Trump having the power to call for MI due to insurrection and a coup to steal the presidential election. I think you were mentioning the recent raid
However I do think the recent raid does connect with the state secrets and FBI/DOJ vs MI
Yes, I was - sorry about that. When I read/scanned the Dong case document you provided inre federal overreach, I thought you were pointing to the M-A-L incident. Tangled web here. I'll have to read this through again from a different perspective, so to speak. Legalese is not my field at all so I have to read it s-l-o-w-l-y and repeatedly.
Thank you so much for your clarification(s).
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/R42659.pdf
Lots of good information about insurrection and presidential powers but I haven’t filtered yet to post any in thread.
“DeFuND ThE PoLICe” makes a lot more sense now!!
“insurrection, Congress and the President understood that the military was there only to assist civilian power in enforcing the law, not to sup- plant local authority.36 The civilian federal law enforcement and the civilian federal courts maintained primary authority to enforce the tax and prosecute offenders.“