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.

[Mac-7]

Refuse orders and shoot Hitler.

Now you are being silly

 

[kyzr]

Got any evidence the info is wrong?

There is no evidence. Got any indictment or conviction for anything?????

 

[berg80]

The President as ELECTED executive decides those things

"Those things" being impeachable offenses.

 

[martybegan]

Sand in the gears is an interesting way to put threatening to resign over Trump naming an unqualified sycophant as AG because the acting AG wouldn't participate in an attempted coup.

I'm talking about the ones that didn't resign.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I predict the response to this thread by Trump supporters will be along the lines of reflexive claims like fake news.

Trump and allies plot revenge, Justice Department control in a second term​

Donald Trump and his allies have begun mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term, with the former president naming individuals he wants to investigate or prosecute and his associates drafting plans to potentially invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to allow him to deploy the military against civil demonstrations.

In private, Trump has told advisers and friends in recent months that he wants the Justice Department to investigate onetime officials and allies who have become critical of his time in office, including his former chief of staff, John F. Kelly, and former attorney general William P. Barr, as well as his ex-attorney Ty Cobb and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley, according to people who have talked to him, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. Trump has also talked of prosecuting officials at the FBI and Justice Department, a person familiar with the matter said.
In public, Trump has vowed to appoint a special prosecutor to “go after” President Biden and his family. The former president has frequently made corruption accusations against them that are not supported by available evidence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/05/trump-revenge-second-term/

Fake news having become an euphemism in Trump speak for "that reporting looks accurate so what else can I say."

I should also like to point out this kind of authoritarian behavior is exactly what I keep seeing Repubs accuse Biden of engaging in. Why? Because it has become a common practice among the stable genius's defenders to accuse others of what he is doing.

Nope it's the revenge tour deal with it

 

[martybegan]

You're missing the obvious. They were trying to defend the constitutional order while Trump was trying to destroy it.

They were disagreeing with Trumps politics and policies, and lied about their reasoning.

 

[berg80]

There is no evidence. Got any indictment or conviction for anything?????

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.

 

[martybegan]

"Those things" being impeachable offenses.

Not even close. Only in the minds of prog twats like you.

 

[postman]

It should have applied at nuremberg

A soldier in combat is not equipped to decide lawful or unlawfull orders

Its a heads we win, tails you lose situation

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]

It's amazing you want unelected idiots to have power over an elected President.

Like the 9 UNELECTED justices on the US Supreme Court do?

That phrase is both trite and wrong.

 

[berg80]

Nope it's the revenge tour deal with it

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]

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?

You leftists brought this shit on yourself. Taking a page from the leftist handbook and you don't like it fuck off

 

[berg80]

I'm talking about the ones that didn't resign.

You're talking, but you aren't saying anything.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

You leftists brought this shit on yourself. Taking a page from the leftist handbook and you don't like it fuck off

.

And the show is going to be glorious!

.

 

[berg80]

You leftists brought this shit on yourself. Taking a page from the leftist handbook and you don't like it fuck off

Enforcing the rule of law demands retribution? Since when?

 

[SeaMajor7]

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?

It's going to be FOR THE COUNTRY that you fucking demented communist assholes are destroying, SHITberg!!!!!

 

[Mac-7]

They said they would quit.

Former DOJ officials detail threatening to resign en masse in meeting with Trump​

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107217243/former-doj-officials-detail-threatening-resign-en-masse-trump-meeting#:~:text=Former%20DOJ%20officials%20detail%20threatening,in%20meeting%20with%20Trump%20%3A%20NPR&text=Hourly%20News-,Former%20DOJ%20officials%20detail%20threatening%20to%20resign%20en%20masse%20in,3%2C%202021.

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

The freedom to wage insurrection against the elected government?

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.