Posted on 11/26/2025 10:09:26 AM PST by DallasBiff
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Top experts.
They did add the weasel words of “unlawful order” to their tirade. That will probably be their get out of jail card if they are ever charged and tried.
“They are not telling service members to overthrow the government.”
Fang Fang’s boyfriend, Eric Swallwell, just stated the military needs to stop Trump.
“They were clever all they did was state the code.”
As the British say, you are being clever by half.
No, they did not just state the code; they encouraged the servicemen to violate the code. The code does not allow for personal intrepretation, but allows for misgivings thru chain of command, not just blatant disobeying.
If they were only doing what you say, they would have enmpahsisized the appeal process, not just not disobeying.
I still like Glenn Beck’s take: If that had happened in Russia, people would have thought a coup was occurring.
They’re like a bratty kid in the back seat trying to see what their parents will let them get away by poking their finger an inch from their sibling’s face saying “I’m not touching you!”
I have a former JAG friend who says a conviction would be unlikely because its too “implied”.
Anyway they want a big trial where they can turn it into a circus of political martyrdom. It would be foolish to give that circus to them.
Sure - tell me, exactly, what they said that violates this statute.
They told the soldiers “don’t follow illegal orders”
This quoted professor of law is really an idiot if he really believes that the democrats were just telling the troops to follow the law. It is very clear they were trying to foment problems with the troops by planting the idea that Trump is issuing illegal orders, yet none of them when questioned could site one illegal order. This is a typical leftist “expert”.
Did he specify which part was too “implied.” And if someone were really not trying to imply, but go whole hog, what would they say any different than what the seditious 6 said?
By the way, the military court would not be public.
Look I am not a lawyer! My friend is an ex-military lawyer with considerable experience. His opinion carries some weight with me! Are you a military or ex-military lawyer?
i guess the “experts” ignored the actual meaning of “seditious”:
“Seditious means relating to or promoting sedition, which is speech or conduct that incites insurrection or rebellion against an established government or authority. An act or speech is considered seditious if it is intended to cause rebellion, subvert a constitution, or stir up discontent toward the government.”
Apparently it has given some people the idea that if they think it’s an unlawful order, it’s ok to shoot national guardsmen.
I think it would be better to just keep beating them up for it. Don’t let voters forget about it. Saying stuff like they did can have unintended consequences. As for these experts it’s just their opinion.
Yup, the GD democrats and leftist media have gotten what they have been asking for.
Agree! That way they are always reacting. A trial will force the prosecution side to moderate its rhetoric. And yes a UCMJ trial is not public, which will prompt media & leftist screams of it being a star chamber - a PR circus!. Best not to give them their circus!
The source gives it away.
BRAVO SIERRA. Yes, the “unlawful order” statement by itself is not seditious, but you know damned well what was their intent.
And should a soldier be found guilty for mischaracterizing a lawful order as unlawful, will they be there to help with the defense??? Not a snowball’s chance ...
“experts”
Robert Ringer (I liked his books but I am NOT a Libertarian)
wrote that people are so gullible that when told someone to speak to them at a meeting or to be seen on TV is an “expert” from far away, they will believe and revere the “expert” and ignore one from nearby.
So hearing someone from California means the Midwest person takes them seriously.
And the West Coast people revere the Harvard speaker. Regardless of any wisdom or experience.
I bet all the “experts” are woketards!
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.