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

[ll74]

We’ve shown a perfect example of sedition here. Now on to treason. Remember the Vindman Brothers? Two Lt. Colonels who went outside their chain of command (never were disciplined for that either) and were instrumental in getting President Trump impeached?

Well, turns out they were working for oligarchs supporting a foreign government. Well, well, well.

Hopefully the long arm of the law will finally bring justice in this travesty.

"Under investigation"

Turns out they are another vidictive target of the Justice department who will be cleared of any wrongdoing once the political messaging has exhausted.

“The letter does not explicitly allege the Vindmans received money from the Ukrainian government, arguing only that they “did not insulate themselves from the requirements of federal law,”

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

Your brainwashed position is of substance.

It’s not my “brainwashed” position you should be worried about. It’s the opinion of Law Professors and others familiar with military law.

 

[ll74]

It’s not my “brainwashed” position you should be worried about. It’s the opinion of Law Professors and others familiar with military law.

Yes, it is well known that law professors and others familiar with military law, describe them as "the seditious six" in court opinions and filings

 

[schism666]

If any of this were true the Seditious Six, as they’ve become known, would have laid that out in their little video that has famously backfired. Another one of your loony Porky Pigs (a congressman from AZ) gave an in car drunken expletive tirade yesterday, and let the cat out of the bag that this was just ONE of a planned few videos!

The clown car rolls on…

So, circling back to were “illegal” orders given. Not one of the four Seditious Six interviewed over the weekend could come up with one thing…NOT ONE! In fact they tried to walk it back.

Kind of undermines your hard work above, no?

Do you idiot Radicalized democrat Pigs really think the pentagon would launch an operation without knowing the legality of it?

Oh…AstroYoda…His dick will be the first in the wringer. I can’t think of a bigger dooche to make an example of. Next should be SeditiousSlotkin…

show proof of sedition or eject yourself from the planet

 

[ll74]

It’s not my “brainwashed” position you should be worried about. It’s the opinion of Law Professors and others familiar with military law.

A quick chatgpt analysis does not support your statement:

Law professors who publicly described the Democratic lawmakers’ video/ad as seditious: 0 (I found no public statements by law professors making that claim).

Law professors (or law-school legal experts) who publicly said the video was not seditious or strongly doubted that it was: at least 13 (names and sources below).

 

[LLCox]

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.

Getting charged by the trump administration lawyers is like getting a Get Out Of jail Free card. Hell they can't even get anyone to a trial they are so weak and illegal. Judges are the only ones holding the trump scum back.

 

[HisArpy]

You should really calm down. You’re just rambling incoherently now.

You need to take a fuck off flight to nowhere.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

Hmmm….who was saying this just a mere two days ago?

I hate when I told ya so…but I told ya so.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

A quick chatgpt analysis does not support your statement:

Because we know “Chatgtp” never gets anything wrong…

You might want to look up this guy…yeah…seems he has written extensively on it. He might have even been all over the “news” over the last couple of days giving some insight.

Oh…but I forgot who I’m dealing with. The perpetually interweb challenged. Looks like you have attempted to step into the 21st Century though…I gotta give ya props that Little Piggy.

Pssst…don’t believe every-ting the “bots” tell ye…

 

[ll74]

Because we know “Chatgtp” never gets anything wrong…

I'm sure you can quote multiple law professors and experts who have stated that it was sedition.

Feel free

You might want to look up this guy…yeah…seems he has written extensively on it. He might have even been all over the “news” over the last couple of days giving some insight.

So has he said something on the topic?

No quote?

Neat

Oh…but I forgot who I’m dealing with. The perpetually interweb challenged. Looks like you have attempted to step into the 21st Century though…I gotta give ya props that Little Piggy.

You just referenced someone who has made no statement on the topic.

Pssst…don’t believe every-ting the “bots” tell ye…

I don't need to believe anything - I have sources that correspond to the results that I can easily verify.

But perhaps you just trust a result.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

You just referenced someone who has made no statement on the topic.

Do tell! I actually watched two segments with Turley speaking about it.

Yer “The google chat” ain’t work’n for ya!

 

[ll74]

Do tell! I actually watched two segments with Turley speaking about it.

Quote his words.

Yer “The google chat” ain’t work’n for ya!

So no quote?

Why would Google chat be used?

 

[HisArpy]

Do tell! I actually watched two segments with Turley speaking about it.

Yer “The google chat” ain’t work’n for ya!

Well, when AI doesn't tell you it happened, then it didn't happen.

 

[ll74]

Well, when AI doesn't tell you it happened, then it didn't happen.

I didn't ask AI whether "it happened."

 

[ll74]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1993058243229225434

 

[mstrman]

https://imgur.com/L6TcQ0B

 

[ll74]

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
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,

You're simply wrong here.

Let me give you an example. Suppose a superior officer gives an order to shoot peaceful civilian protestors in the legs and the order is refused. Who has violated the law, the officer who gave the order or the one who refused to obey the order?

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
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.

Do you idiot Radicalized democrat Pigs really think the pentagon would launch an operation without knowing the legality of it?

I certainly hope not (though the history of the USA's military has seen bad actions in the past), but we're more worried here about what your President would order your military to do. There's ample evidence above about where your President stands.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

I certainly hope not (though the history of the USA's military has seen bad actions in the past), but we're more worried here about what your President would order your military to do. There's ample evidence above about where your President stands.

What illegal order did he give piggy? Name it. The Seditious Six can’t seem to name it.

Your betters are falling all over themselves to attempt to save face. You, Useful Idiot as always, are defending the indefensible.

 

[DeluxAuto]

What illegal order did he give piggy? Name it. The Seditious Six can’t seem to name it.

Your betters are falling all over themselves to attempt to save face. You, Useful Idiot as always, are defending the indefensible.

You're missing the entire fucking point, idiot.

Telling someone not to do something isn't breaking any laws or military codes.

Now that you know that - where is the "sedition?"

 

[Hel_Books]

What illegal order did he give piggy? Name it. The Seditious Six can’t seem to name it.

Your betters are falling all over themselves to attempt to save face. You, Useful Idiot as always, are defending the indefensible.

Apparently you weren't paying attention, so here it is again:

. . . 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.

 

[Hel_Books]

HumpDayHoratio said:
What illegal order did he give piggy? Name it. The Seditious Six can’t seem to name it.

Your betters are falling all over themselves to attempt to save face. You, Useful Idiot as always, are defending the indefensible.

You're missing the entire fucking point, idiot.

Telling someone not to do something isn't breaking any laws or military codes.

Now that you know that - where is the "sedition?"

HDH is lost in a weird little universe all their own. If you said, "Bulldozing the Washington Monument to put up a parking lot would be wrong," HDH would demand the names of the people ordering the Washington Monument to be bulldozed!

 

[DeluxAuto]

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?

Mirrors are seditious!

Fuck outta here, idiot.

 

[DeluxAuto]

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?

Fuck that bone spur having pedo and the drunk TV host he rode in on.