The Trump Presidency 2.0

[Cookie_]

Not sure why Obama’s actions would qualify under immunity but precedence is biting us again- statute of limitations didn’t matter for the “34 felonies” case, so it doesn’t matter now.

These actions took place when Obama was President, so he'd be presumed to have immunity for offical acts Under the Supreme Court ruling.

The statute of limitations for seditious conspiracy is five years- there is no limit for treason.

As we've discussed on the board before, the legal definition of "treason" is pretty limited. They've gotta show Obama was working with a foreign power or levying war against the government.
----
To clarify; these two points aren't me trying to defend, just highlighting some of the discussions I've seen in other places.

Wake me up when they drop charges. The normies don’t care about Epstein as much as the hardcore do, they’re tracking even less of what CROSSFIRE HURRICANE, CROSSFIRE RAZOR and the entirety of Russia gate actually means to this country, as evidenced by some on this board.

To me, the Obama/Biden investigations and declass looks to be aimed specifically at the fervent MAGA base (WWG1WGA types) as opposed to rank and file Americans.

Agreed with your take and assessment here. It's always nice to now when the powers that be get caught doing crooked shit, but if nobody is held accountable, if just Becomes another "everyone in politics is crooked" story that few people care about.

 

[DA SWO]

Make it a Civil Rights case and statue of limitations isn't an issue.

 

[amlove21]

These actions took place when Obama was President, so he'd be presumed to have immunity for offical acts Under the Supreme Court ruling.



As we've discussed on the board before, the legal definition of "treason" is pretty limited. They've gotta show Obama was working with a foreign power or levying war against the government.
----
To clarify; these two points are me trying to defend, just highlighting some of the discussions I've seen in other places.

Snip

Your problem is assuming there are rules. There aren’t. If you’re saying the ‘necessary and constitutionally protected official duties’ of Obama included fabricating intel reports with the express purpose of a coup against a sitting president- ok, I guess? I know you’re not defending it, I am in the same way not attacking you for it.

A coup fits my personal definition of ‘war against the government’ for treason- more importantly, against all Americans. Representative republic works both ways- if the will of the people puts the elected official there, then an attack on that individual is an attack against The People.

The People voted for Donald Trump as the head of the executive, the only office on which we all vote. I’m not shocked by it, but I do recognize that all Americans should be livid about this story, and the half that don’t like the man simply aren’t.

Like seemingly everything else- we will see what happens, but I can only go off the past performance of this admin and the players involved. I’m of the mind that what should happen won’t.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Real?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1947084128467517489

 

[amlove21]

Real?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1947084128467517489

It’s been all over X, Himes hates Trump, and MAGA, his reported reasoning (“John Brennan’s safety”) seems plausible enough.

I guess as real as anything else is? I can’t find a specific quote from Himes, only reporting. But…

… he does have a Ukraine flag in his X bio, so you know he’s retarded.

 

[Cookie_]

Real?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1947084128467517489

Seems to be from a CBS interview. I can see him calling it a "dangerous lie" and basically calling the idea of charges a bluff, but I don't see where he's asked to stop releasing things.
I just did a quick scrub of the transcript between sets, so its possible I missed it.

 

[Marauder06]

Seems to be from a CBS interview. I can see him calling it a "dangerous lie" and basically calling the idea of charges a bluff, but I don't see where he's asked to stop releasing things.
I just did a quick scrub of the transcript between sets, so its possible I missed it.

I didn't look long, but all I was able to find was the tweet and then circular reporting related to the tweet.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Seems to be from a CBS interview. I can see him calling it a "dangerous lie" and basically calling the idea of charges a bluff, but I don't see where he's asked to stop releasing things.
I just did a quick scrub of the transcript between sets, so its possible I missed it.

He also was a Colbert guest. Why was Colbert cut, because he used his platform for politics instead of entertainment. Interesting connection.

 

[Muppet]

@Teufel
@Marauder06

 

[Marauder06]

ummmm you guys have any more of that "promotions?"

 

[AWP]

@Marauder06 help me out here because it has been a minute.

Congress has to approve all promotions for commissioned officers, right? They are pretty blanket up to FOGO I think, but does Congress have a say on the process and standards for promotions?

 

[Marauder06]

@Marauder06 help me out here because it has been a minute.

Congress has to approve all promotions for commissioned officers, right? They are pretty blanket up to FOGO I think, but does Congress have a say on the process and standards for promotions?

I'll be honest, I'm not 100% sure. I think the executive branch handles company grade ranks, and field grade promos get the congressional approval. For FOGO there's a lot more scrutiny and interest.

 

[Devildoc]

Yeah, I *think* that O4 and higher requires executive branch senate approval. By the time those lists get to them they've already gone through all the boards and vetting so it's just performative to sign en bloc. All the sausage gets made by the boards who actually select the officers.

The Senate will sign off on what the branch secretaries/SECDEF recommend regarding standards, except for FOGOs which esteemed colleague @Marauder06 pointed out get extra scrutiny and interest.

10 U.S. Code § 624 - Promotions: how made

I was never a real officer like Mara or Teufel, and for years had imposter syndrome...

 

[AWP]

I was kind of wondering what latitude is provided to POTUS, SECDEF, etc. It is one thing to say "we will do X" but another to have the authority to do "the thing." I would imagine quite a bit, but intention and reality aren't always the same thing.

 

[Devildoc]

I was kind of wondering what latitude is provided to POTUS, SECDEF, etc. It is one thing to say "we will do X" but another to have the authority to do "the thing." I would imagine quite a bit, but intention and reality aren't always the same thing.

I would imagine once policy is changed based on commander's intent (SECDEF by direction of POTUS) it becomes a zoo to have to change all the downstream military personnel policy to reflect that, but I think you raise a good question, and I don't know.

To piggyback on your question, I wonder how much of the executive/senate 'responsibility' is just rubber-stamped by staff underlings when the DoD sends them (if they send the executive/senate this info, at all) info that says 'hey, we are changing the way we promote officers, here's the info.' I mean, do they really care? I don't know.

I remember when I was promoted and saw the list come out, all the names on the dozens of pages of promotions in each and every community both active and reserve. I thought, they aren't really scouring for my name and looking at my bona vides.

Now you're making me think. Dammit.

 

[AWP]

I would imagine once policy is changed based on commander's intent (SECDEF by direction of POTUS) it becomes a zoo to have to change all the downstream military personnel policy to reflect that, but I think you raise a good question, and I don't know.

To piggyback on your question, I wonder how much of the executive/senate 'responsibility' is just rubber-stamped by staff underlings when the DoD sends them (if they send the executive/senate this info, at all) info that says 'hey, we are changing the way we promote officers, here's the info.' I mean, do they really care? I don't know.

I remember when I was promoted and saw the list come out, all the names on the dozens of pages of promotions in each and every community both active and reserve. I thought, they aren't really scouring for my name and looking at my bona vides.

Now you're making me think. Dammit.

Back when the mass firings of federal employees began, the DoD was within a day or two of the same before the brakes were pumped over the US Code. You can't go out and RIF folks from the DoD without doing a study on the effects of those cuts. I'm pretty sure the study was kind of pencil-whipped, but whatever.

Anyway, that brought to mind my question(s) and I'm not saying changes shouldn't happen (the same with the cuts) are there laws in place which have to be followed or can the SECDEF wave a magic wand and set whatever qualifications he wants? I don't know.

 

[Devildoc]

Back when the mass firings of federal employees began, the DoD was within a day or two of the same before the brakes were pumped over the US Code. You can't go out and RIF folks from the DoD without doing a study on the effects of those cuts. I'm pretty sure the study was kind of pencil-whipped, but whatever.

Anyway, that brought to mind my question(s) and I'm not saying changes shouldn't happen (the same with the cuts) are there laws in place which have to be followed or can the SECDEF wave a magic wand and set whatever qualifications he wants? I don't know.

Bolded/italicized, same questions. I know that it's been baked in the USC, like, forever, but I also know that the USC is pretty ambiguous (at least the link I put in my previous post).

 

[Cookie_]

Anyway, that brought to mind my question(s) and I'm not saying changes shouldn't happen (the same with the cuts) are there laws in place which have to be followed or can the SECDEF wave a magic wand and set whatever qualifications he wants? I don't know.

There are multiple sections of the USC that dictate officer eligibility and timelines, so I don't think he can wave a wand on those.

What is within his purview is creating guidance on "how" services should rack and stack them, which I think is probably closer to what he's getting at in the video.

 

[amlove21]

Interesting thought experiment on the Obama scandal (not the tan suit... or the thousands of civilians killed by his unilateral drone program... or the quid pro quo with Russia... the Russiagate scandal).

re; statute of limitations of 5 years for seditious conspiracy. If that's the charge, it's 5 years since anyone involved took an action, as long as the investigation is ongoing. Denials are an action (as in, a cover up).

Trump and Bongino and Kash all talked Russiagate a lot- know who talked more than all of them combined? Folks like Adam Schiff. The democrats did. There was an endless parade of "we have evidence of collusion!" for four straight years. I would bet the can find something within 5 years.

 

[Marauder06]

Saw this on Facebook earlier today. "Yeah, I get it, but it's a little too on the nose. Disbelieve."