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

That case could also be reopened.

 

Based on what? Liberal feewings? There is certainly no evidence and evidence is piling up of the conspiracy behind it.

 

I explained to you and cited to you the War Powers Act does not apply here it applies to a President deploying troops and the time limits on those deployments. NO STATUE would prevent the nuclear launch.

 

There were a number of convictions on various charges. Paul Manafort and Roger Stone come to mind. Were it not for Trump's pardons, both would still be in prison. Manafort has, for the moment, disappeared from public view, but new investigations into Ukraine could bring him back into the picture. Stone was at the January 6th speech and riot, with his personal security being provided by the Oath Keepers, approximately 30 of whom are now being investigated for conspiracy charges.

 

No it does not. I quoted the portion of the law that applies. And, yes, a law may prevent a presidential first strike order. Military officers are required to obey only lawful orders.

 

Oh, you mean mostly process crimes created by the FBI that made it appear there was actually something there there. Stone was not at the riot so that too is another left wing false narrative.

 

Anyone that thinks Trump was going to nuke China just ain't playing with a full deck.

 

Stone was at the rally. There is video of him standing outside of his hotel with his Oath Keeper bodyguards. "Process crimes" are bonafide crimes, such as lying to the FBI. They are not "created" by the FBI; they are created by the liar, usually to cover-up another crime. Both Manafort and Stone were convicted of additional crimes, other than lying to the FBI.

 

Most of the rest of the world was concerned with the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. Our government's job (including Milley's) was to reassure them that we were and are still a nation under law and that the coup attempt failed.

 

I do not share your obsession with Donald Trump, and for me, this thread is only peripherally about him. My concern is not so much that it happened to be him in the Whitehouse for the dates in question, but more with the idea of a CJCOS essentially promoting himself to be superior to the President, and the precedent that sets. I'm not talking about potentially valid concerns about enabling a single person, regardless of their title, to legally be able to start a nuclear war without some form of checks and balances, and I'll concede that may be something that needs to be addressed, but that doesn't really matter here as them's the rules that existed, and still do, at the time GEN Milley did what he allegedly did..

<<Mod Edit - Rules 5 and 8 - Removed Off topic - Lee S>>

Every single word I've had to say in this thread is assuming that the allegations from the book are in fact true. No, we do not know that to be the case, and likely never will considering who is running the show, but that does not change the fact that if he did as alleged. what I've said about it is accurate. There exists no law that empowers the CJCOS to do what it is he (again, for the 50,000th time, allegedly) did. Period.

I have been completely consistent in the points I've been attempting, and sadly failing, to make. I am therefore at a complete loss how you could make that particular accusation, as it literally makes no sense.

This entire thread can be boiled down into two basic points.

1- Is GEN Milley guilty of doing what Woodward alleges in his book. Presently we don't know, and absent a proper investigation, we likely never will, but from a hypothetical point, that is critical point numero uno.
2- If the answer to (1) turns out to be yes, is there any legal authority for his actions. The answer to that is no.

If (1) is yes (which we do not know) and (2) is no, which it is, then he is guilty of Treasonous actions by inserting himself as a decision maker in a process that, by law, he is not. And not only did he make himself a decision maker, he structured it so that his judgement was superior to the President's, and gave himself the ability to override and ignore a legal order from his boss. Just as a Platoon Sergeant cannot override their Platoon Leader, and that same Platoon Leader cannot override their Company Commander, the principal is identical, it's just the ranks (and consequences) are much, much higher.

 

Correct it does not apply here and as cited NO statute limits to Presidents authority. Milley acted with insubordination and should resign or be fired and face a courts-martial.

 

All pretty cut and dried........................

 

There was zero "worry" that Trump would "go rogue". IF this is true, this was done by Nancy Pelosi to obtain a political attack against Trump should he run again. These arrogant *******s didn't consider that they were the seditious, treasonous, insurrectionists, because they consider themselves the untouchable elite.

Nancy Pelosi, Gen. Milley, and anyone involved should be arrested immediately. They are a danger to the nation.

 

Yes, the War Powers Act DOES APPLY and limits the actions the President may take under his "emergency powers" to DEFENSIVE actions only.

 

The rally was at Stones hotel?

 

No. Stone was in Washington D.C. the day of the rally. He was videotaped standing with a group of Oath Keepers outside of his hotel, on January 6th. Stone apparently claims he had nothing to do with the January 6th rally and that he remained at his hotel until leaving town.

 

The link to the atlanting was a tiny portion of the comment.

You are babbling.

 

The eternal debate between the left and right is really a subject for it's own thread. Some other time.

Yours is not a fact, but a sentiment, noting that it is simplistic, the more complex dynamics of which already mentioned.

Your sentiments on the candidates noted. Since you did not place your comment directly in my quoted text, you leave me to guess what, precisely, you are referring to. I suspect your reference to 'underhanded' goes to kicking Trump out of the GOP. So, I offer the following:

Look, I'm sympathetic to 'moose wang' but Trump was the republican's choice, and, as such, the underhanded maneuver (kicking him out of the GOP/RNC) would have saved America all the turmoil and chaos that resulted therefrom. Reince Priebus, wasn't up to the task, which is unfortunate.

A large swath of the electorate, whom I would characterize as not well educated, given to conspiracy theories, not that bright, etc., all of whom love Trump, they have always been there. They (or most of them ) voted for whomever was the republican nominee in the past, but they were always there, and their collective voice was never really accessed by republican leaders until Trump. What Trump did was recognize this group, and in Trump, they found their champion. Trump, who is very clever, understood that power is derived from being in favor to a large group, and he uses this power to browbeat republicans into submission. It was the very reason he was acquitted in the two impeachments. To quote a famous line in the book by Robert Grave, 'I Claudius', the moment in which Claudius was made emperor, who said, upon his being picked ( given that he was an unlikely candidate for emperor, being a stutterer and considered to be a half-wit, thereby ) "Let all the poison that lurks in the mud hatch out".

I was a care giver for several years in a facility for the mentally disabled, which included several cases of elderly dementia patients. I feel I am qualified, therefore, to assert that:

Sorry, yours was, indeed, a text book example of the 'cheap shot'.

Oh, yours might be an opinion, but a cheap shot, nevertheless.

Milley is scheduled to testify before congress, soon. I'm sure the right will employ said 'proctoscope'. Since we are tossing up metaphors, I have no doubt he will bat out of the park any hard balls thrown at him.

Read the book, watch the video. You know, 'due process', I'm sure you are familiar with the concept.

CAVEAT: As for 'plebs', note that there are, and always have been, more of them than there are of you, not that it matters (but it kinda does for the vote, eh?)

 

Like I said, read the book, watch the video. You are jumping to a conclusion unwarranted by the full context and circumstance.

 

Oh. So everyone in DC was at the rally and riot? Fascinating.

 

We would settle for the truth about our election process while the democrats fight against any proposed audits of that process.

 

You keep pointing to the Woodward video as your evidence, which is nothing more than Woodward's opinion that there was nothing wrong with the conversation between the Generals. He doesnt even present an argument.
Milley is "prohibited by law from having operational command authority over the armed forces" and he asserts such authority.

 

That's your conclusion, not mine. Stone apparently gave two or three rally speeches on January 5th.

 

What conclusions have I jumped to? The book is not released the excerpts have been and that is what I am addressing. Milley has not denied what is reported that he said and did and that would be an act of insubordination. He is NOT in the chain of command and has no command or control authority. Officers in the military are NOT free to do as they please in those roles, they are under the UCMJ.

 

The President and Nuclear Weapons: Authorities, Limits, and Process

May Congress Limit or Prohibit Use of Nuclear Weapons?

Currently, no statute limits or regulates the president’s authority to use nuclear weapons. Bills on the subject have been introduced and debated over the decades, however,42 and congressional interest has increased recently.43 Like questions about authorization, the extent of Congress’s authority to pass such a statute is controversial, although Congress certainly has some power to affect the president’s decision-making in this area if it chooses to act.
https://media.nti.org/documents/The_President_and_Nuclear_Weapons_Authorities_Limits_and_Process.pdf

Going it alone? The president and the risks of a hair-trigger nuclear button

The president of the United States can, in theory, launch nuclear war by personal decision—without any checks or balances. Whether we really think any of the candidates for president in 2016 would cavalierly start a nuclear war, the bombastic and bizarre character of much of this year’s electoral debate should make us take this question seriously. Someday, the United States really could have a mentally ill president who chose to do the unthinkable. The odds are low, but we should seek to make them even lower, given the stakes at hand. Because it looks like humankind will be stuck with the nuclear bomb for many decades (if not centuries) to come, moreover, the solution to this problem cannot be simply to get rid of all existing nuclear arsenals. We need a more immediate answer.

To be sure, a president is required by the War Powers Act of 1973 to seek congressional approval for any military action within 60 days of its inception. But most presidents consider that act unconstitutional. In any event, a nuclear war could easily devastate the planet within just days or hours—long before the 60-day stipulation would be binding. Even if a president had obtained congressional approval for a war that began using only conventional weapons, no provisions of the War Powers Act would require subsequent congressional action prior to nuclear escalation.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/orde...d-the-risks-of-a-hair-trigger-nuclear-button/


AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE
USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

=======================================================================

HEARING



BEFORE THE



COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE



ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS



FIRST SESSION



__________

NOVEMBER 14, 2017


....But this process means the President has the sole authority
to give that order, whether we are responding to a nuclear
attack or not. Once that order is given and verified, there is
no way to revoke it.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115shrg34311/html/CHRG-115shrg34311.htm

Give it up.