Thanks, Prof. Now do “insurrection”.
“Experts”, sure. Paid shills for the democratic fascist party. INTENT, buddy. Intent is crystal clear, but they will be allowed to hide behind the word “illegal”.
Yeah that was my take on it too - the rats made a perfectly crafted message.
I think tone and intent could be argued that the language had ulterior motives but it would all depend on the judge or jury to swing that argument.
Self-proclaimed “experts”. Aha. Got it.
“Experts” have a way of cherry picking their claims.
The video is not “treasonous” or “seditious” as defined by the respective statutes on those matters but it could well be a “subversive act” covered by 18 USC 2387
Real experts are active and retired officers and noncoms. And they get the no good these cosplaying 6 were up to. What I want to know is who put them up to it, who paid for it, who scripted it and who put the whole thing together.
Lol
Radical Left Win Politico fake institute
goes to 4th rate FL law school
that is known for parking violation law .
Shutdown this commie Annenburg Dem front group
and get the 8 million in fake subscription stolen from US Taxpayers .
This lefty lie machine website needs to closed .
Right, “experts” with a political agenda. These experts can only get away w/empty words because the media protects them.
One would think by now that everyone would understand that any statement following the words “experts say” has zero credibility.
Saying that an officer must determine the legality of orders and disobey illegal orders is not improper, to say the least of seditious — it is a statement of black-letter law and it is a core principle of the officer training curriculum in every commissioning source of every branch.
On the other hand, it’s very dubious indeed to say that a particular order is illegal, and thus ought to be disobeyed, or that a particular order-giver is prone to illegal orders and thus must be obeyed only with particular circumspection. To prosecute someone successfully I think you’d have to prove that the speaker knew the orders were lawful and intended to cause military disorder in making the statement, or BOTH that the speaker was reckless in respect of the legality of the order AND actually influenced someone to disobey an order.
At this point, Kelly et al. haven’t gotten to that point. Any prosecution of them would quickly, and embarrassingly, fail.
The people that participated in the video lecturing the military are not in the chain of command and have absolutely no business in doing so. Military personnel have been briefed and have had reoccurring training on issues like this, but this comes from the chain of command in a military setting.
Experts, fresh from predicting a worse-than-normal hurricane season in the US have moved on to weigh in on legal matters, because... EXPERTS!!!
Let me guess, the same people who talked about “peaceful” actions taken in the name of George Floyd.
Of course, the Democrats found unbiased ‘experts’ to support their position. Kinda like the neutral ‘fact checkers’ who always claim Orange Man Bad.
Are any of these so called “experts” military JAG officers?
Experts?
Maybe they can run out and get 51 Signatures to agree.
Who are the “experts?” Adam Schiff? Nanzi Pelousy? Lieawatha? Lynn Cheney? George W. Bush? Need I go on?