The Seditious Ring Leader in the senate is finally asked the hard questions.

[HumpDayHoratio]

Raditz vs Seditious Slotkin

The money shot comes (no pun intended) at 1:45 ish…the pivot comes about 30 seconds after her admission she’s a lying piece of excrement.

Notice two things here class. First, her shifty eyed non-response and basically anytime she attempts to pop chaff. Second, the way a democrat is handled in these types of interviews. Martha, while I give her credit for pressing the issue and not letting her off the hook, still doesn’t get in her face like she has with Republicans she knows are popping chaff on her.

Now. Will she and her cohorts pay a price?

 

[schism666]

is "seditious" the new magatard's buzzword that they will use incorrectly for the next 3 months because the senile felon said it?

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

is "seditious" the new magatard's buzzword that they will use incorrectly for the next 3 months because the senile felon said it?

What she did IS the definition. There really isn’t any wiggle room here piggy.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

AstroYoda could be court-martialed. There really needs to be some real consequences for his sedition. All, their sedition.

 

[Hel_Books]

AstroYoda could be court-martialed. There really needs to be some real consequences for his sedition. All, their sedition.

According to this report on CNN there is a real danger that Trump will give orders to the military that are illegal and he may already have done so:

. . . Trump has repeatedly proposed doing things – with the military and otherwise – that appear to be illegal. People who served with him have said he suggested illegal action. And Trump is certainly testing the bounds of the law with his use of the military even as we speak.

The big example right now is Trump’s strikes on alleged drug vessels in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean – strikes that have killed more than 80 people without a legal process. . . .

CNN has reported that both the United Nations and top allies like the United Kingdom regard the strikes as illegal extrajudicial killings. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has echoed those claims, while other GOP senators have questioned their legality as well. The administration has also declined to publicly detail its legal justification, even as the Justice Department has produced a classified legal opinion authorizing the strikes. It has released survivors of the strikes who, if they had been kept in US custody, could have forced it to defend itself in court. Also, a top commander who CNN has reported raised questions about the legality of the strikes is now retiring early.

There is a very real question about whether the servicemembers involved in those strikes are carrying out illegal orders. And the administration has proactively avoided a more robust legal process that could settle that question.

But that’s hardly all. Here are some other key data points:

During the 2016 campaign, Trump floated having the military torture people and kill terrorists’ families. When it was posited that troops would not follow such illegal orders, Trump responded: “If I say do it, they’re gonna do it.” (He later backed off, saying he would not order people to violate international law.)

In 2020, Trump told Iran that the United States was prepared to strike Iranian cultural sites, which would likely have been considered a war crime if carried out.

In 2018, Trump’s first secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, said publicly after his departure that Trump had repeatedly tried to do illegal things.

In 2019, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen resigned after clashing with Trump over his repeated desires to do things she thought might be illegal.

Former Trump Defense Secretary Mark Esper has said Trump in 2020 floated having the military shoot racial-justice protesters demonstrating near the White House in the legs.

A series of judges this year have indicated the administration has flouted or violated court orders with its deportations or its use of the National Guard on domestic soil.

Those National Guard deployments represent an extraordinary use of the military, the legality of which is still being sorted out in courtrooms across the country.

 

[mstrman]

Pentagon threatens to court-martial Democratic senator over 'refuse illegal orders' video​

The video could lead to his recall to active duty and possible court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Pentagon said​

The Pentagon said it may even call Kelly, a retired Navy captain, back to active duty to face court-martial proceedings or other administrative actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

 

[schism666]

What she did IS the definition. There really isn’t any wiggle room here piggy.

no, it's not.

What she did IS the definition. There really isn’t any wiggle room here piggy.

you have proof of this?

 

[HisArpy]

Pentagon threatens to court-martial Democratic senator over 'refuse illegal orders' video​

The video could lead to his recall to active duty and possible court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Pentagon said​

The Pentagon said it may even call Kelly, a retired Navy captain, back to active duty to face court-martial proceedings or other administrative actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

"Could" and/or "may" isn't the same as "will."

And you know that old adage about how there being a "will" there's a way?

There ain't no way because there's no "will" in this case. Lots of noise but no actual forward motion.

 

[Hel_Books]

There ain't no way because there's no "will" in this case. Lots of noise but no actual forward motion.

Probably no "will" because no self-respecting officer would be willing to tell a US Senator, combat veteran and astronaut, "We're charging you with a crime under the USA's Uniform Code Of Military Justice for quoting the Uniform Code of Military Justice in public."

 

[HisArpy]

Probably no "will" because no self-respecting officer would be willing to tell a US Senator, combat veteran and astronaut, "We're charging you with a crime under the USA's Uniform Code Of Military Justice for quoting the Uniform Code of Military Justice in public."

Yeah, tell us you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the UCMJ without telling us you don't know SHIT about the US military or the UCMJ.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
Probably no "will" because no self-respecting officer would be willing to tell a US Senator, combat veteran and astronaut, "We're charging you with a crime under the USA's Uniform Code Of Military Justice for quoting the Uniform Code of Military Justice in public."

Yeah, tell us you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the UCMJ without telling us you don't know SHIT about the US military or the UCMJ.

Yes or No: the Senator was telling the truth about how soldiers aren't supposed to follow illegal orders.

 

[HisArpy]

Yes or No: the Senator was telling the truth about how soldiers aren't supposed to follow illegal orders.

FLAT OUT, he wasn't telling the truth.

The UCMJ is very clear that personal beliefs don't override orders from a superior. ANYONE telling you to not obey an order, merely because you or they believe it is illegal, is soliciting mutiny. If you do what they're telling you to do, YOU ARE COMMITTING mutiny.

These are simple concepts that everyone who's ever served knows and understands. Those who don't understand these concepts never served in ANY armed force. Those who solicit mutiny know they're doing it and they also know the potential penalty. Most don't care because they believe they can ride out the punishment or that there won't be any punishment.

For the elites, the latter is highly likely. For the proles, they're just wrong, though you'll never convince them until after it's too late.

That you don't know any of this proves that you're only a parrot with no idea of what you're saying and instead repeat the words of others who are using you for their own purposes.

How's it feel to be a stupid puppet?