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!

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.

"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!

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 count 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.

"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!

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 count 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.

"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!

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 count 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.