Worried Trump could 'go rogue,' Milley took top-secret action to protect nuclear weapons

But he didnt implement any policy.

 

Milley, worst kind of scumbag traitor to this nation that ever wore 4 stars. Firing squad too good for him.

 

Believing the election was fraudulent isnt "pretending he is the elected president".

 

And changed nothing about a nuclear launch. What is noteworthy is that the President was getting advice including he should launch the pre-emptive strike by some in what would now be the NSC in the movie but did not need permission to do so. It would have been his decision alone. That's how it works as I have shown.

Democrats Want Biden to Relinquish Sole Authority for Nuclear Launches
https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_us-po...-sole-authority-nuclear-launches/6202565.html

 

See above. He does NOT have to have their permission. They ADVISE.

 

Then cite the law verbatim that restricts the President authority to do so with link.

 

As I told you before

A fact, yep. Someone who has to make stuff up for lack of an facts. So either quote me claiming Trump won or admit you blew that one out your arse.

 

He is part of the ADVISERY process only and there is no requirement he be consulted. He injected himself into that command authority by holding the meeting with other officers and then insinuating to to a foreign military official that he was in such a chain of command.

 

This post is pure fiction.
Another dodge another falsehood. Your premise is that we have to look all over the internet to find a quote where you say Trump won which is pure B.S. Where is the honesty and maturity? It takes 30 seconds for you to tell us if you think Biden is Legitimate. The real issue is that you absolutely will not tell us whether you think Biden is the Legitimate President. Again where is the honesty and maturity? You are aiding and abetting Trump's effort to disrupt our democratic and election process. Trump is telling millions of his followers that he is the legitimate president. This is in your interest and the interest of many of Trump's former supporters who want to undermine the legitimacy of Biden’s presidency and want to sew discord about our election process.


On post1514 you called democrats F'd up. Since I'm a Democrat that would include me. Why haven’t the mods penalized that post.

 

It's quite possible that you never claimed that Trump won, but if you didn't, you are by far the most contradictory poster I've seen on any forum.

How can you support Trump if you know he's the worst liar in the history of this country?

 

Read the book, especially page #129, which puts it all in context. But here's a word about Milley and the context and circumstance surrounding all the hysterics by many on the right who have accused him of 'treason', by the author of "Peril", Bob Woodward. Note that we had a precedent for this set by Schlesinger during Nixon, no one accused him of 'treason' at the time.

 

A preemptive strike is no longer legal, per the War Powers Act.

 

Officers in the military take their oath to the Constitution, not the President. They do not follow illegal orders. Since the War Powers Act prohibits the President from launching a pre-emptive attack, supporting such would be a violation of their oath.

 

"IF". Well, it isn't.

Before you toss around such bold terms as 'Treason' against a man who has spent his life defending the constitution and AMerica from it's enemies, noting that rising to the position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is no small accomplishment, the least you can do is read more about the issue than jump to such a drastic conclusion on hearsay.


Listen to the author of "Peril' the source of all the hysterics by the right:

 

I've already done so, but here it is again: The War Powers act of 1973, Public Law 93-148, Section 2(c) - "The constitutional powers of the President as the Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

(1) is a Congressional declaration of war, per the U.S. Constitution. (2) is a statutory law by Congress, known as an "Authorization to Use Force." (3) is in response to an attack on the United States, its territories or possessions, or it armed forces.

 

The problem with that is Trump intentionally appoints spineless sycophants, none of whom would ever have the high mindedness and sense of duty to the constitution whereby they would impose the 25th amendment. For that occur, he'd have to be in a wheelchair and totally incapacitated. Short of that, not going to happen.

The founding fathers made a terrible assumption, that the senate, the president, and the officers in government would act in good faith.

For most of the last two centuries, that has been true for most in the executive and legislative branches, until Trump. How do deal with a demagogue was never part of the original framework.

 

He's a principal member of the National Security Council. Those members are confirmed as advisors by the Senate. That makes him part of the decision-making process. Milley never said that he would contradict a legal Presidential order. He asked those in the National Military Control Center only to be aware of the process and to notify him if anything seemed out of order...for instance, if the President was acting on the advice of say Roger Stone or Mike Lindell, or more simply, to what attack was the President responding? Since the operational people have immediate access to those in the established advisory chain, they would confirm any attack to which the President was ordering a response.

 

I mean sure it was. In the original framework: The VP and president were competitors, not allies. The VP was the guy who got 2nd place ffs.
The Senate wasn't directly elected and so wasn't as directly amenable to all the 'gibs me dats' freebie bullshit and pork they all float now. They were put in place by state legislators to watch after the interests of states as a whole, to be balanced against the directly elected house.
We've removed all those safeguards.


Or, maybe, he's just an ******* and wasn't actually insane and so the 25th amendment doesn't apply.
Unlike our current president whose behavior strongly resembles that of my grandfather as dementia cut him down.

Either way: He doesn't get to subvert the chain of command. He can refuse an unlawful order at point of sale as it were, but not pre-emptively.
He can be reactive, not proactive on this issue.
He was proactive, he violated his oath and merits punishment and so do the officers he suborned into his seditious conspiracy.

 

"Peace deals that were historic"?

Listen to you. First off, they weren't peace deals. Peace accords occur between warring nations, and none of the nations here were at war.

Second, peace accords typically take years or considerable effort by diplomats, including the work of the president, to happen. Such was the case with the truly historic peace accord navigated by Carter involving Egypt and Israel, two warring nations. However, Anwar Sadat paid the ultimate price, shortly thereafter, he was assassinated, a plight predicted by King Hussein ( of Jordan ) a few month's prior. Still, that agreement has continued to this day.

What occurred with Trump is not historic at all, they are reciprocal agreements (or whatever they are called ) but not 'historic peace accords' , that's just pure hype, and, as such, for Trump, who did little to bring them about, it's low hanging fruit. That's the trump style, pluck low hanging fruit, **** that doesn't take a lot of work, and hype them to no end and his followers will lap it up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...596a50-f650-11ea-85f7-5941188a98cd_story.html

But while the optics of Tuesday’s event will evoke the groundbreaking agreements that ended decades of war between Israel and neighboring Egypt and Jordan, and that launched the peace process with the Palestinians, the reality is quite different.
[...]
Over the last three years, Trump has cut off aid to the Palestinians, recognized contested Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, dropped the longstanding U.S. opposition to Israeli settlements and released a Mideast plan that overwhelmingly favors Israel.

The breakdown of the longstanding Arab consensus that recognition only be granted in return for territorial concessions has meanwhile left the Palestinians arguably more weak, isolated and demoralized than at any point in their history.


As for engaging "NATO'

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/14/trump-biden-foreign-policy-alliances/

Even before collapsing further due to Trump’s mishandling of the pandemic, confidence in him to “do the right thing” in international affairs stood at just 29 percent among 32 countries polled—down from 74 percent in former President Barack Obama’s final year in office. Global confidence in Trump is significantly lower than in German Chancellor Angela Merkel (46 percent), French President Emmanuel Macron (41 percent), and Russian President Vladimir Putin (33 percent)—and just one point higher than in Chinese leader Xi Jinping (28 percent). Germans are now equally divided on whether the United States (37 percent) or China (36 percent) is their closest partner, while just 28 percent of Britons trust the United States to act responsibly. Confidence in Trump is only 36 percent in Japan, 32 percent in the United Kingdom, 28 percent in Canada, 28 percent in Brazil, 20 percent in France, 13 percent in Germany, and a mere 8 percent in Mexico, while favorable views of the United States have fallen from 64 percent in 2016 to 53 percent in 2019. Asked in June whether she trusted Trump, Merkel paused before saying only “I work with elected presidents around the world, including, of course, the American one.”

[...]

Sadly, Trump’s systematic rejection of allies and alliances is accelerating rather than abating. Indeed in the past two months alone, the United States has announced the unilateral withdrawal of some 10,000 U.S. troops from Germany without consulting or even informing the German government; rejected allies’ pleas that it remain party to the Open Skies arms control treaty; found itself all alone on the United Nations Security Council trying to extend an arms embargo on Iran on dubious legal grounds; alienated all its G-7 allies with a proposal to invite Putin to the group’s next meeting; and terminated its relationship with the World Health Organization during a pandemic, drawing widespread criticism from allies while increasing China’s leverage in that organization. With the United States now isolated on so many fronts, the next administration—one that we, the authors, hope will be led by former Vice President Joe Biden—faces a daunting task in rebuilding the United States’ global alliances and partnerships and restoring trust and confidence in the country and its leadership. As Biden has recognized, that agenda starts at home: by restoring the moral authority and soft power that have been so critical to the United States’ success around the world and by revitalizing the U.S. State Department, demoralized after years of poor leadership and funding cuts. The project must also be accompanied by a plan to revive diplomacy and rebuild U.S. alliances all around the world.


Not mention Trump's undermining NATO confidence in article 5, the cornerstone policy of the alliance.

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/07/trump-nato/492341/

 

"TDS" is a thought-terminating cliché, and, when offered as the salient portion of an argument, renders the argument incompetent.

 

The President was not acting on anyone's advice, just in the manufactured nuclear crisis that was so deftly handled by Pelosi and company. It's so damned transparent I'd be embarrassed to try to justify it.

 

that's not the circumstance. Military leaders consort with their equivalents on the other side all the time, in order to reduce mounting concerns and tensions that might cause an unnecessary strike.

All the hysterics comes from a misunderstood quote in Woodward's book. Okay, how about listening to Woodward give more context on this:

 

Thing is , Pence and Quayle were both from Indiana, served as VP and both had to 'open the envelopes on Jan 6' for the opposition winning and were long time friends.

It was natural for Pence to consult with Quayle. Such matters were a no brainer for the republicans of yesteryear. Everything has gone downhill under Trump.

 

Says who?

Milley will testify before congress soon.

In the meantime, all of the hysterics regarding Milley comes from a misunderstood passage quoted in Woodward's book "Peril", so why not listen to Woodward answer the critics accusing Milley of treason?

 

I don't think so...just read the posts herein. How many actually believe the President has the power to initiate a a nuclear war? Pelosi was concerned, as was much of the world.

Republicans continue to downplay the significance of the January 6th attack on the Capitol.