Trump’s presidential immunity claim would place troops in legal jeopardy if they abide unlawful orders, ex-officials warn
Troops could be placed in the precarious position of having to say no to the commander-in-chief or break the law should the Supreme Court grant former President Donald Trump’s motion to dismi…
The military already has an obligation to follow only “lawful orders”. This argument seems moot and partisan.
Yes, but consider the subtext for a moment.
« There are people alive who served in the military all the way back to JFK that did illegal things and will now have to own up to them if you do this. »
Well technically that's a double edged sword.
What if the "illegal things" is in fact the Q team secretly trying to undermine the evil cabal people that have legal authority?
Remember, for a moment, that Q once said it must be done « by the book. »
If they operate by the book, there is nothing to prosecute.
But Q also said 80% underground/ black ops, 20% public
indeed, that is the responsibility of every citizen. A Moral Compass in each and every one of us, is ultimately what will save the world.
Seems like Trump is on a huge precedent setting legal tour. Do we want the presidents held accountable, or those obeying their orders? And of course the question may be incorrectly framed. Popcorn time regardless of which way this goes!
When the lefties realise that he was letting them set all kinds of precedence using himself as a guinea pig, I cant even imagine the kind of brain-melt they will have.
You could say their mental bubbles will.... burst :)
Don't forget...there is the "southend" to consider since liberal(s) tend to spew stuff out the other end....🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
It’s only 1 or 2 brain cells in their thick skulls. They’ll melt fast
It'll be painful. 💀
Why can't it be both? Break the highest law of the land and -- Lady Justice should keep her blindfold on; President or janitor, the law should apply equally.
Anyone following the orders of even a President should not be absolved of the requirement to behave lawfully and ethically. Nuremberg should certainly be a reminder of THAT.
This is a plan by trump for scotus to reject immunity so he can go after obama and biden later
What the hell kind of logic is this article using:
the move would put troops “in the impossible position of having to choose between following their Commander-in-Chief and obeying the laws enacted by Congress.”
When you chose between two different things it is exclusive, This OR That. Troops could be obeying their CiC's order that are (and) consistent with laws enacted by congress.
Finally, what the hell is the CiC doing issuing illegal orders in the first place.
I can't wait to here SCOTUS ask questions about this. This is going to make for one hell of a circus.
The below paragraph is also incorrect.
"While the Military Code of Justice holds that troops must decline unlawful orders, the group argued that siding with Trump could unfairly force service members into the uncomfortable position of rebuking the leader of the free world or facing jail time."
So it might actually incentivize them to obey the Military Code of Justice, rather then their illegal orders? Is that their argument?
“Under this theory, the president could, with impunity, direct his national security appointees to, in turn, direct members of the military to execute plainly unlawful orders."
Idiots!! The President is not immune from prosecution. A president can be impeached for committing illegal acts, and tried in the Senate. THAT'S WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS IDIOTS!
When I enlisted, and with each re-enlistment I took this oath, and it says nothing about obeying the laws passed by Congress. BUT it does specifically mention the Constitution:
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
This one sentence is the plunger into all of this BS: "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
"obey the orders of the President of the United States"....the aholes are trying hand tie the President...that is all!!!
I took that OATH for 30 years (ret. mil) and this is NOTHING but lawfare!!!!! The SCs are there to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN AND NOT TRY TO INTERPRET...
I'm just quoting what the article says about code.
Ok, so there are two outcomes:
a) Presidential immunity, which we must remember was spawned by the taking home of presidential records; and b) No presidential immunity, which implies that there is a 'higher authority', other than say: God - so Congress and SCOTUS, have power over the president.
Option a) means that Trump is given a 'free pass' LOL. Trump wins.
Option b) means EVERYBODY, alive or dead, who broke the law, while in power, is hunted down, and not necessarily by Trump himself. LOL. Trump wins, also.
So that's pretty comfy. Anyone have any of that buttery popcorn?
But, to be clear, there is that pesky three branches of government thingie. The Executive branch has it that presidents have immunity - they need flexibility to, for example,: Call Krushchev at the height of the Cuban Missile crisis when such peace-nik diplomatic activity could be construed as traitorous by War-hawks. Think I'm kidding? Why do you think it is illegal to even film missile strikes in Ukraine?
Congress and SCOTUS, i.e. the Legislative and Judiciary branches, can only offer advice, they cannot rule over the President - much as they would like to.
i like where this is going.
Substitute “C I A and F B I agents” for “military troops” and rethink the implications.
PANIC
Orders already have to be lawful.
Someone clearly has not heard of the Fried Green Tomatoes.
It is naive to believe parts of our military have not been comped and are involved in terrible things.
How about the orders devised by and manipulated by the c aye a to create the situations which necessitated action? How about illegally funded lawfare kinds of orders? Does this principle apply to doj and f bee eye? How far down the line of responsibility do we go?
Where's the names, huh? Why are there never any names printed with these "letters?"
Also, I hope SC(r)OTUS rules against Trump here. That way, Biden and [Hussein] and [W] and [Slick Willy] will be held responsible for killing innocent civilians while claiming [they] were "saving democracy."
Is this out of fear...what have they done. What unlawful orders did they follow? Why the concern?
Warn? Sounds like a good reason for SCOTUS to dismiss the case.
Can't wait to hear oral arguments, and SCOTUS questions on this.
Firstly, the president does not have immunity from prosecution for committing illegal acts. That is what Impeachment is for. Impeached in the House. Tried in the Senate. Exactly the way our constitutions directs.
Secondly, SCOTUS ask, "Are you saying that if we rule against the immunity clause that troops should be obeying unlawful orders contrary to the Military Code of Justice requirement, which by obeying could land them in jail.