Posted on 05/04/2024 8:22:06 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
According to Colonel Earl Matthews, who testified before Congress in April, US military leaders revoked President Trump’s Commander-in-Chief powers that day and refused to move in the National Guard.
..... Snip.....
The Daily Mail reported:
Donald Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief was ignored by senior military leadership on January 6, 2021, claims the chief legal advisor for D.C. National Guard on that day.
He claims that Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, and then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, were plotting to disobey any orders handed down by Trump because they ‘unreasonably’ assumed the then-president was going to break the law and try to use the D.C. National Guard (DCNG) to stop certification of the 2020 presidential election results.
A lot has been made about the breakdown in military and administration communication when it came to the timeline of deploying DCNG to the Capitol.
But Matthews claims senior military leadership was solely focused on getting the heat off of them and putting it back onto Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
What if the leaders of China and/or Russia had known that? Would they have launched a “counterforce” nuclear strike upon such a once in a millennium opportunity? “Blue” cities in “blue” states have a lot more to lose in a nuclear war than “red” ones...
Yes! Without a doubt!
Usurped would be a better description. Revoked hints that their mutiny was legitimate.
Direct order under fire, hanging offence.
The US military is controlled by transgender activists.
While the headline sounds a bit hyperbolic, if even remotely true, that constitutes a willful coup and overthrow of the duly-elected government. They must be punished accordingly as the law prescribes.
The Joint Chiefs have no military authority, but are advisers to the POTUS.
The fellow who wrote this should know better than to write that anyone could take away a presidents CIC powers other than through impeachment and removal from office.
> If true, that’s treason. <
In spirit, yes it was treason. But not legally. The Constitution defines treason in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
I suppose the Founders set the treason standards rather high to stop a president from charging every opponent with treason, as the kings of old did. The behavior of those generals does not meet those high standards.
But what those generals did was a really big deal, on the same level as treason. So how could it be described? Gross dereliction of duty? That seems way too mild.
Freepers be careful what you post. The government agencies are probably all over conservative websites posing as conservatives. Remember what made this country great: Under God. If we ever decide to submit to God again, He will bless America, just as He die Israel when they woke up.
Yup.
I seriously doubt the truth of this.
But if it IS true, several Brass Hats should hang.
A lot of confusing crap happened that day...
Ah, AlaskaErik has got it right. It wasn’t treason (my post #29). It was a mutiny.
I agree with all except, congressional investigations. Utterly useless, when they will end the investigations with strongly worded letters.
This was downright treason the military brass pulled that day.
___________
Ok...no argument on that point. It is the clear definition of treason. The question of importance is what does PDJT say in the current campaign that he believes should happen when he gets back into office. He has already said he is fine with letting the crimes of ByeDone go by the wayside, didn’t he?
It’s one thing to think about what should happen in the future and it’s a other thing to campaign on it. The issue is what does he say that meets both the needs of justice and winning?
It’s a side point, but setting up the Joint Chiefs was a good idea. But then having a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was a very bad idea. As you noted, the Chiefs are just advisers. But having a chairman is a dangerous thing.
Better to keep all of them exactly equal.
Excuse me, but that's not possible. Military brass cannot usurp the Commander-in-Chief. You called it right, that is treason.
And,”Some call it treason”.
I want those F’ers tried and convicted. Disgusting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.