Milley secretly called Chinese officials out of fear Trump would 'attack' in final days, book claims

  
Via:  Vic Eldred  •  one month ago  •  233 comments

By:   Kyle Morris (Fox News)

Milley secretly called Chinese officials out of fear Trump would 'attack' in final days, book claims
A new book claims Gen. Mark Milley called Chine officials in fear that Trump would "attack" during his remaining time in the White House.

Leave a comment to auto-join group Books

Books


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



During the final months of former President Donald Trump's term, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley made two phone calls to Chinese officials in fear that Trump would create conflict with the communist nation, a new book has claimed.

In the book, authored by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward and national political reporter Robert Costa, it is alleged that Milley made two secret phone calls, both to his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People's Liberation Army. The book alleges that the phone calls took place prior to the 2020 presidential election on Oct. 30, 2020, and two days after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, on Jan. 8, 2021.

According to the book, Milley contacted Zuocheng after he had reviewed intelligence that suggested Chinese officials believed the United States was planning an attack on China amid military exercises in the South China Sea.

"General Li, I want to assure you that the American government is stable and everything is going to be OK," Milley told him during the first call, the book said. "We are not going to attack or conduct any kinetic operations against you."

The book, excerpted in the Washington Post, also stated that Milley told Zuocheng that he would warn him in advance should America decide to "attack."

"Gen. Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we're going to attack, I'm going to call you ahead of time," Milley added, as reported by the book, "Peril," which is set to be released next week. "It's not going to be a surprise."

The authors of the book also claim Milley contacted Zuocheng a second time to reassure him that the U.S. would not make any type of advances or attack China in any form, as Milley promised, "We are 100% steady. Everything's fine. But democracy can be sloppy sometimes."

Those phone calls, according to the book, were never mentioned to Trump, as Milley believed his mental state had declined following the election, something about which he shared his thoughts in a phone call with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Jan. 8, the same day he called Zuocheng the second time. According to Pelosi, she spoke with Milley that day about "available precautions" to prevent Trump from engaging in military action.

The book also alleges that Milley made a phone call to the admiral in charge of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command and suggested postponing any additional military exercises. The book also noted that Milley requested senior officers swear an "oath" that his involvement be necessary should Trump give an order to launch nuclear weapons during his final days in office.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

If these allegations are true General Milley is guilty of treason. As of 8 PM EST Milley has yet to deny these allegations.

The book is 

Peril

GUEST_da9c4d49-98a8-481c-b727-a25ec40bab16?wid=325&hei=325&qlt=80&fmt=webp

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

Here's a thought. Right after we try and execute Trump for trying to overthrow the US government and reinstall himself as president we'll get around to Milley. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1    one month ago
Right after we try and execute Trump for trying to overthrow the US government and reinstall himself as president we'll get around to Milley. 

We are trying to discuss something serious here.

Your rant about Trump is unappreciated and is false.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    one month ago

Its not false at all. Trump specifically wanted the election results to be returned to the states and for the Republican legislatures in swing states to declare that he was the winner. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1    one month ago

I have a better thought. Why didn't we shoot down all the rioters last summer and arrest all those blue city mayors who aided the mob.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    one month ago

Get over it John.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    one month ago

What do you mean "get over it"? Get over that Trump wanted to steal the election? Uh, no. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    one month ago

Please, then, sir, explain why the tough Biden Administration-- with a hard-on for any and all things Trump--hasn't charged him with the crime?

Uncaring or incompetent fools?

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.1.7  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    one month ago
I have a better thought.

Really?

Why didn't we shoot down all the rioters last summer 

Probably for the same reasons that 500 Capital police didn't shoot at thousands demonstrators outside the Capital building

and arrest all those blue city mayors who aided the mob.

for what?  Do you have film of these mayors committing crimes?

If you do and haven't turned them in you are obstructing justice.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.1.8  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.6    one month ago

Precedent, we aren't a banana republic yet.

In a recent interview   with NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro, Biden said: "I will not interfere with the Justice Department's judgment of whether or not they think they should pursue a prosecution."

But he hastened to add that an administration pursuing criminal charges against its predecessor would be "a very, very unusual thing and probably not very, how can I say it? good for democracy — to be talking about prosecuting former presidents."

Based on those remarks, Biden seems to be on the way to adopting the position of former President Barack Obam. Back in 2009, the newly elected Obama said he didn't want to get hung up on prosecuting wrongdoers. He was referring to people who had engaged in torture and warrantless wiretapping during the previous administration.

Instead, Obama told ABC News at the time, his instinct was to make sure those practices never happened again.

Would A Biden Justice Department Prosecute Trump? It's Complicated : NPR
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.7    one month ago
Probably for the same reasons that 500 Capital police didn't shoot at thousands demonstrators outside the Capital building

They did shoot and kill one protester, We will never forget.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.8    one month ago
Precedent, we aren't a banana republic yet.

Precedent means precious little other than in a court of law.

Prosecuting someone you think is guilty of a crime seems far less "banana republic" to me compared to letting someone you think is guilty of a crime walk away.

Pretending that Trump isn't under investigation and may soon be under federal indictment doesn't support your argument about precedent on not prosecuting former Presidents, either.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
1.1.11  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.9    one month ago

Had she been an antifa member, you/we would have cheered.

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
1.1.12  GregTx  replied to  Hallux @1.1.11    one month ago

WTF does that even mean? Were there Antifa members gunned down that conservatives cheered and gloated about?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.1.14  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    one month ago
Pretending that Trump isn't under investigation and may soon be under federal indictment doesn't support your argument about precedent on not prosecuting former Presidents, either.

A couple of things there.   ISN'T and MAY BE aren't arguments, they are weak speculation.

Trump is under investigation for a ton of things that happened before he was President

like insurance fraud, state tax evasion and possible federal tax evasion.

Possible campaign fraud but those are usually restitution and a slap on the wrist because he can always blame other people.

US policy is to NOT prosecute former Presidents and cabinet members or NSA's.

We didn't even prosecute Jeff Davis or Robert E Lee ...

and we didn't prosecute James Schlessinger when he basically told the Joint Chiefs to ignore

any of Nixon's direct orders when Nixon was losing it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.8    one month ago

Babbitt was not an innocent protester - she was a domestic terrorist and got what she deserved.  Justice was served.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.13    one month ago
Are you talking about the precedent case, Roe v Wade?

No.

Jesus Christ, did you read that in my post? Are we talking about abortions here?

WTF are you going on about???????

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.14    one month ago
US policy is to NOT prosecute former Presidents and cabinet members or NSA's.

Fine. Show me that policy.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1.1.18  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1    one month ago

Better idea - court martial and jail Milley for violation of the UCMJ and let Congress and the FBI conduct an investigation - just like the one they did with Flynn.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.19  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.18    one month ago

Flynn espoused QAnon.  Come back to reality. They are not comparable. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1.1.20  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.19    one month ago

And Milley "probably" espouses Larry Flynt - your point?  Milley has violated the UCMJ - what he did WAS/IS NOT in his job description, no matter what a few on NT say.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.21  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.20    one month ago

My understanding is that Milley knew his phone calls with China might be seen as him superceding his authority, and was willing to do it anyway out of duty to the country, not the UCMJ. 

Although I doubt this will lead to his removal, I think he is ready for whatever happens. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.21    one month ago
My understanding is that Milley knew his phone calls with China might be seen as him superceding his authority,

Because it did.

He was wrong, and should be court-martialed.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.23  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.22    one month ago

At the time Milley spoke to China Trump was spouting ridiculous conspiracy theories, interfering with the aftermath of a US election and trying to get himself reinstated outside the established electoral process. He was unhinged. Some people say he's always like that so what is the big deal? 

Milley made the right call. Will he pay a price? We shall see. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.23    one month ago

Milley was wrong no matter how hard you spin.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.25  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.22    one month ago
He was wrong, and should be court-martialed.

Yeah,  meddling in  our foreign policy, offering to commit treason and almost certainly leaking this to Woodward are all fireable offenses. 

He's up there with MacArthur as far as politicized generals go, and he has none of MacArthur's talents or accomplishments. 

He's set a horrible and very dangerous precedent.  I'd think even Democrats can see the problem with this. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.26  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.25    one month ago

Milley did the right thing. If he is punished on the letter of the law he will accept it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.27  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.24    one month ago

It is not spin. Trumps bizarre behavior is documented in four separate books now by four separate and unconnected authors. The right is in complete denial. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.26    one month ago
Milley did the right thing. If he is punished on the letter of the law he will accept it. 

Milley deserves to be court-martialed. He was WRONG.

Also, he won't have any choice but to accept whatever deserved punishment ultimately comes his way.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.29  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.28    one month ago

Y'all want to put Milley's actions in a context outside of Trump's bizarre behavior at the time. We are not going to let you do that. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.29    one month ago

The mere fact that you refuse to admit that Milley was wrong is astounding.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.31  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.30    one month ago

I am not a lawyer and dont know what his defense to charges of "treason" might be. So I wont speculate on innocence or guilt. 

I know I have had ABC on all morning in the background with their various shows that are mostly news oriented and Milley has barely even been a topic. 

It seems to be going nowhere. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.31    one month ago
I am not a lawyer and dont know what his defense to charges of "treason" might be. So I wont speculate on innocence or guilt. 

Seems completely at odds with your posts over the last 5 years.

I know I have had ABC on all morning in the background with their various shows that are mostly news oriented and Milley has barely even been a topic. 

Yeah, other things are going on in the world.

besides, much of the mainstream media will tend to ignore it because even they know Milley was wrong.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.33  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.32    one month ago

One does not have to be a lawyer to correctly analyze Trump and trumpism. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.34  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.33    one month ago

And one doesn't have to be a lawyer to recognize what Milley did was wrong.

 
 
 
Trotsky's Spectre
Freshman Quiet
1.1.35  Trotsky's Spectre  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1    one month ago
'Right after we try and execute Trump for trying to overthrow the US government...'

But where are these proceedings happening? Has a trial date been set? Have charges even been laid? The refusal/failure to do these things effectively sanctions continuing efforts to destabilize and overthrow the US regime. The lack of action screams that the US regime has already fallen and is now in the hands of those with no commitment to the historic 'United States.' This is not to be read as a partisan comment. It is rather that such remarks as you make are all that remain of the US Republic.

And someone making remarks on a[n internet] street corner do not fit my definition of a republic.

At some point, it must be asked, 'what's next.'

 
 
 
Trotsky's Spectre
Freshman Quiet
1.1.36  Trotsky's Spectre  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.6    one month ago
'... explain why the ... Administration ... hasn't charged him with the crime...'

Easy!

The socio-political fortunes of Biden's Next 9% faction derive from the affluence and status of the 1%.

Next question?

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
1.1.37  gooseisback  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.7    one month ago
Capital police didn't shoot

One sure the hell did! He killed a girl in cold blood for no apparent reason.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.38  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisback @1.1.37    one month ago

That bullshit AGAIN?

She was a domestic terrorist who got exactly what she deserved.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.39  devangelical  replied to  gooseisback @1.1.37    one month ago
for no apparent reason

totally justified. the DC cop self restrained. I wouldn't have. she should've got 1 more.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
1.1.40  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.8    one month ago

Obama was praying the next administration would forgive his sins with all of his illegal extra judicial drone killings- including two US citizens.

When it came to illegal wire tapping and spying on US citizens (including a political opponent) Bush Jr couldn't hold a candle to Obama. So 

Seems that Democrats have forgotten that little rule when it comes to Trump. They are still investigating him for everything under the sun; including Jan 6th- even after the FBI said Trump had nothing to do with any preplanning done by a few small groups of right wing extremists. Now you will say that Pelosi is not Biden; and Garland isn't following Biden's unwritten orders. That is the standard SOP; so Biden can hopefully expect the next PotUS to overlook all of his numerous illegal sins after he is out of office.

If the Democrats had the goods on Trump he would already be up on criminal charges; which is why they are all still fishing. Trump is the most investigated man in the US. The Democrats can drop their whining about the Clintons and Obama. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.41  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.40    one month ago

I really hope Milley is called to Congress about this. He has first hand knowledge of Trump being unhinged.  The right is going to open up a Pandoras box. 

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
1.1.42  MonsterMash  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.15    one month ago
Babbitt was not an innocent protester

George Floyd wasn't an innocent bystander did he get what he deserved?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
1.1.43  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.23    one month ago

The first call was before the election

From the article:  "the book alleges that the phone calls took place prior to the 2020 presidential election on Oct. 30, 2020, and two days after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, on Jan. 8, 2021"

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.1.44  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.40    one month ago
Obama was praying the next administration would forgive his sins with all of his illegal extra judicial drone killings- including two US citizens.

Why?  Did we forgive the Republican POTUS and the CIA for 2004 - 2009?

512

( and I thought Pakistan was an ally? )

I know you have very strong opinions, congratulations.

Too funny. We have come a long way since Lincoln was vilified as a monkey lover and the most picked on POTUS.

Trump just seems like the most picked on because he is at the head of a line of 45 individuals and all you can apparently

see and defend.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.45  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.9    one month ago
They did shoot and kill one protester, We will never forget.

You're deflecting Vic. SP's comment clearly cites 'demonstrators outside the Capitol building'. You deflect to a criminal insurrectionist who was shot inside of the Capitol building. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.46  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.1.45    one month ago

First of all - welcome back.

Second of all - she was a protester.

Finally - Nobody should have gotten in. The Capitol Police should have been prepared and ready. They should have been prepared and ready when another group of protesters were threatening the White House in 2020. I wonder why they weren't?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.47  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.20    one month ago

Which Article of the UCMJ did Milley violate 1st? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.48  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.1.47    one month ago

I can't speak for 1st, but I'm thinking article 92 and/or 94.

A penny for your thoughts?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.49  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.46    one month ago
Second of all - she was a protester.

You think that climbing through a locked and barricaded broken door window is a "protest" ? 

If the black lives matter folks that you love to claim were trying to breach a police precinct had gotten inside, would you refer to them as "protesters" ? 

You can say a thousand times that she was a "protester" but it wont make her a protester. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.50  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.48    one month ago

Article 92 of the   Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)   is "Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation" (written or stated). The   U.S. military   considers it a dereliction of duty when soldiers are unable or unwilling to perform the job assigned to military personnel.

Examples include sleeping while on duty, watch, or sentry; drunken or self-injury to the point of unable to perform his or her duties; and shooting oneself to get out of required duties, deployments, or other elements of the job. The military also considers it a dereliction of duty to perform a job so poorly that innocent non-combatants or one's own troops get injured or killed.

Elements of Article 92

There are several key elements to Article 92 that must be considered:

  • Violation of a lawful general order or regulation :   The individual must have violated a general order or regulation that they had a duty to obey.
  • Failure to obey other lawful order :   The individual must have known about the order, had a duty to obey it, and then failed to do so.
  • Dereliction in the performance of duties :   The accused must have had certain duties that he or she, through neglect or culpable inefficiency, simply failed to perform.




    Defining Article 94 of the UCMJ

    All of the  articles  of the UCMJ requires prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a handful of critical assumptions—known as elements—to convict you of a crime. Article 94 governs two separate offenses—mutiny and sedition. From most to least serious:

      1. Mutiny by creating violence or disturbance
        1. That the accused created violence or a disturbance; and
        2. That the accused created this violence or disturbance with intent to usurp or override lawful military order
      2. Mutiny by refusing to obey orders or perform a duty
        1. That the accused refused to obey orders or otherwise do the accused’s duty;
        2. That the accused in refusing to obey orders or perform duty acted in concert with another person or persons; and
        3. That the accused did so with the intent to usurp or override lawful military authority.
      3. Sedition
        1. That the accused created revolt, violence, or disturbance against lawful civil authority;
        2. That the accused acted in concert with another person or persons; and
        3. That the accused did so with the intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of that authority
      4. Failure to prevent or suppress a mutiny or sedition
        1. That an offense of mutiny or sedition was committed in the presence of the accused; and
        2. That the accused failed to do the accused’s utmost to prevent and suppress the mutiny or sedition
      5. Failure to report a mutiny or sedition
        1. That an offense of mutiny or sedition occurred;
        2. That that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the offense was taking place; and
        3. That the accused failed to take all reasonable means to inform the accused’s superior commissioned officer or commander of the offense.
      6. Attempted mutiny
        1. That the accused committed a certain overt act;
        2. That the act was done with specific intent to commit the offense of mutiny;
        3. That the act amounted to more than mere preparation; and
        4. That the act apparently tended to effect the commission of the offense of mutiny



          https://www.bileckilawgroup.com/court-martial-defense/articles-of-the-ucmj/article-94-mutiny-and-sedition/#:~:text=Defining%20Article%2094%20of%20the%20UCMJ.%20All%20of,least%20serious%3A%20Mutiny%20by%20creating%20violence%20or%20disturbance
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.51  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.49    one month ago
You think that climbing through a locked and barricaded broken door window is a "protest" ? 

A lot more than trying to burn a police station down with people inside.


If the black lives matter folks that you love to claim were trying to breach a police precinct had gotten inside, would you refer to them as "protesters" ? 

I would call them rioters.


You can say a thousand times that she was a "protester" but it wont make her a protester. 

Get used to hearing it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.52  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.50    one month ago

Which of these particulars do you think apply to Milley? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.53  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.51    one month ago

Oh I am used to hearing it from you. Its just incredibly stupid. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.54  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.52    one month ago

Attempted Mutiny, dereliction of duties and TREASON.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.55  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.53    one month ago

Your comments are totally off the wall, starting with 4 years of the Russia hoax.

Let's not make it personal John. Stick to the topic, ok?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.56  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.54    one month ago

The word treason does not appear in either of the Articles you posted. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.57  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.56    one month ago

No it doesn't. I gave you the first two that relate to articles 92 and 94. Treason was my little extra addition.

It might be better to address the first two

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.58  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.55    one month ago
Dereliction of duty is a specific offense under United States CodeTitle 10, Section 892, Article 92 and applies to all branches of the US military. A service member who is derelict has willfully refused to perform his duties (or follow a given order) or has incapacitated himself in such a way that he cannot perform his duties. Such incapacitation includes the person falling asleep while on duty requiring wakefulness, his getting drunk or otherwise intoxicated and consequently being unable to perform his duties…

Dereliction of Duty does not apply to General Milley in this instance. 

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

Understanding Article 94 (Mutiny or Sedition) of the UCMJ

There are two types of mutiny defined in Article 94 but both require an attempt to “usurp or override military authority”.

  1. Mutiny by creating violence or disturbance may be committed by an individual or a group.
  2. Mutiny by refusing to obey orders or perform duties requires action by two or more persons in resisting “lawful military authority”. The insubordination may or may not be preconceived and does not have to be active or violent in nature. Intent may be proven through words, or interpreted through acts, omissions, or surrounding circumstances.

Sedition requires an action resistant to civil authority. The action need not be violent nor create a disturbance.

Failure to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition is used when the accused did not take reasonably necessary measures, appropriate to the circumstances, to prevent or suppress a mutiny.

Article 94 – Mutiny or Sedition | Crisp and Associates | Free Consultation (mymilitarylawyers.com)

None of this applies to Milley either. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.59  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.57    one month ago

I looked at them both and I dont see the application to Milley. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.60  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.57    one month ago

This is the definition of sedition under military law

  1. Sedition
    1. That the accused created revolt, violence, or disturbance against lawful civil authority;
    2. That the accused acted in concert with another person or persons; and
    3. That the accused did so with the intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of that authority
    4. UCMJ Article 94: Mutiny and Sedition - Bilecki Law Group

This doesnt apply to Milley either. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.61  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.58    one month ago

Oh but it does.

Sedition requires an action resistant to civil authority. The action need not be violent nor create a disturbance.

Christopher Miller, who was acting Secretary of Defense called the reported calls an 'unprecedented act of insubordination.'

"Former acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, who led the Pentagon  from the period after the 2020 election through Inauguration Day, said that he "did not and would not ever authorize" Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley to have "secret" calls with his  Chinese  counterpart, describing the allegations as a "disgraceful and unprecedented act of insubordination," and calling on him to resign "immediately."

In a statement to Fox News, Miller said that the United States Armed Forces, from its inception, has "operated under the inviolable principle of civilian control of the military." 


 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.62  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.61    one month ago

By definition sedition requires more than one participant. 

But beyond that, Milley doesnt meet any of the other aspects of sedition either. 

I guess you could say he disregarded the chain of command in this instance.  What article does that fall under? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.63  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.46    one month ago
First of all - welcome back.

I haven't been away, Unlike some, I've never been suspended so I'm here almost every day. 

Second of all - she was a protester.

Nope. Once she entered the Capitol she became a criminal, not a 'protester'. 

Finally - Nobody should have gotten in.

Are you claiming that they should have been shot down in their tracks Vic? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.64  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.48    one month ago
A penny for your thoughts?

I think that you don't know WTF you're talking about. 

What order are you claiming that Milley disobeyed? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.65  Texan1211  replied to  Trotsky's Spectre @1.1.36    one month ago

yeah, I am not into all that hooey.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.66  Tessylo  replied to  MonsterMash @1.1.42    one month ago

That pig murdered George Floyd.  All you have is deflection - George Floyd's murder had nothing to do with this domestic terrorist getting the justice she deserved.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.67  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.46    one month ago

Nope - she was a domestic terrorist/criminal insurrectionist as Dulay stated.  

That's a whole lot of nonsense you're spouting there.  On top of the lie that she was a 'protester'.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.68  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.51    one month ago

Get used to hearing your nonsense debunked.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.69  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.20    one month ago
Larry Flynt is the publisher of Hustler magazine.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
1.1.70  gooseisback  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.38    one month ago
domestic terrorist who got exactly what she deserve

Please tell me what threat she posed to anyone? What watch list was she on? Did she have a bomb? A gun? A knife? Did she have any weapon at all? Oh wait....she had a back pack and broke a door...kill her. 

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
1.1.71  gooseisback  replied to  devangelical @1.1.39    one month ago
totally justified. the DC cop self restrained.

The pussy DC cop who hid in a doorway, surprised he found his gun and didn't leave it in the bathroom AGAIN!  Kill people for property damage. What next...are they going to shoot you if you step on the lawn. 

 
 
 
Trotsky's Spectre
Freshman Quiet
1.2  Trotsky's Spectre  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

'...the Chinese military considered an American military strike to be likely under conditions where Trump was refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.'

'...Trump’s refusal to concede defeat after the election intensified both fears in China and the internal crisis and conflict within the American state.'

'Rather than alert the public as the coup was unfolding, the Democrats did everything they could to keep the crisis contained to the state and military apparatus.'

GOP supporters likewise refuse to acknowledge the intention to bury Biden in this US Reichstag moment. With no section of the ruling class opposing these efforts ...

'Trump in effect called for a police state...'

With '...Democrats continu[ing] to plead for “unity” with Trump’s Republican co-conspirators.'

Quote source :

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trotsky's Spectre @1.2    one month ago

Anybody who thought the US was about to attack China was most likely insane.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

if true, the general made the right call, considering the 10 month mental break with reality trump is still suffering.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.3    one month ago

Until a General makes a call you don't like.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2  Texan1211    one month ago

Even if one can rationalize the calls to start with, this statement would have to be considered damning by anyone with a brain:

"Gen. Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we're going to attack, I'm going to call you ahead of time," Milley added, as reported by the book, "Peril," which is set to be released next week. "It's not going to be a surprise."

I believe that statement would qualify as "aiding and abetting" the enemy.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @2    one month ago

According to the book Milley was undercutting Trump all the way. Even Vindman is calling for his resignation!

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago

Get back to me when you have read the book, not just a few excerpts.

I thought, you thought Vindman was a POS traitor/foreigner ?

Wow!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.1    one month ago
Get back to me when you have read the book, not just a few excerpts.

Why?  An allegation has been made. We await General Milley's acceptance or denial. Hopefully there is a resignation in there at some point.


I thought, you thought Vindman was a POS traitor/foreigner ?

And I thought that you viewed him as a trust worthy wistleblower?


Wow!

OMG!

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
2.2  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @2    one month ago

Sounds like he was trying to calm down General Li.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @2.2    one month ago
Sounds like he was trying to calm down General Li.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that it was his job to calm down General Li or any other foreign officer for that matter.

Promising to warn an enemy of an impending attack just somehow feels wrong to me.

Imagine that.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
2.2.2  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.1    one month ago

Think I'll read the book and not take the word of FOX or Just The News ... imagine that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Hallux @2.2.2    one month ago

Just The News is not a legitimate news source. Its founder is a well known conspiracy theorist. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @2.2.2    one month ago
Think I'll read the book and not take the word of FOX or Just The News .

Okay.

Get back to me then.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.2.5  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.1    one month ago

As Chairman JCS & as Army Chief of Staff is is among his duties to meet and get to know his counterparts,

friends and foes

as well as advise the CIC and SecDef.

His job is to prevent a war and if that's not possible win it post haste.

He is completely within his job description.

At least as far as we know, he countermanded none of Trumps orders.

Imagine that

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.5    one month ago
As Chairman JCS & as Army Chief of Staff is is among his duties to meet and get to know his counterparts,

friends and foes

as well as advise the CIC and SecDef.

Not in dispute, and not what I am saying he did wrong. But that makes me wonder--did he advise the CinC of his phone calls, or what he discussed and promised?

His job is to prevent a war and if that's not possible win it post haste.

Within the confines and under the authority of the President.

He is completely within his job description.

Doubtful his job description calls for him to inform the enemy of an impending attack, but feel free to prove me wrong.

At least as far as we know, he countermanded none of Trumps orders.

Which may very well to do with why I haven't claimed that.

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
2.2.7  GregTx  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.5    one month ago

Wait.... what?

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.2.8  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.6    one month ago
Which may very well to do with why I haven't claimed that.

No need to deny something that was an observation of someone else's behavior.

I have read that transcript and for whatever reason, (lol ) Just the News cherry picked a few comments out of a 90 minute conversation.

The same slanderous book depicts Trump as out of control and ordering all US troops out of Somalia by

Christmas and Afghanistan by 01/15/2021 so he could take the credit away from Biden,

These EOs were apparently written alone in secret with no input 

from any cabinet members or military aides.  Milley, Patel and even Chris Miller were blindsided by the EO

and went to the WH to see O'Brian & Trump.  They never got to see Trump. NSA O'Brian told Trump the

order was inappropriate. Obrian told Milley, Miller and Patel that the order was in error and "withdrawn".

The American government is a series of checks and balances to protect the many form the weaknesses or

impetuousness of the few.

Like Schlessinger before him Milley did his job.

He's every bit the hero that Dan Quayle is for convincing Mike Pence to do his duty.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
2.2.9  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.8    one month ago

Do you see the problem with your scenario?

They followed the chain of command. Obrian went to Trump- he didn't just stop the orders on his own.

No evidence that Milley did the same when consulting with China; and making promises to warn them in advance of any US attack.

He also asked for loyalty oaths from those officers beneath him.

The leftist BS machine is in full spin mode trying to protect it's new hero.

Since the left seems to need an example- Milley is the perfect example of a traitor and seditionist if what the book claims is true.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.8    one month ago
No need to deny something that was an observation of someone else's behavior.

Also no need to state what no one is disputing then.

These EOs were apparently written alone in secret with no input  from any cabinet members or military aides.  Milley, Patel and even Chris Miller were blindsided by the EO

Not required, so why does it matter? A President can write his own EOs. Show me the requirement and then you may have a point.

And since you seem to think Milley acted appropriately, we are done, I won't continue with someone who encourages and cheers insubordination and insurrection.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
2.2.11  1stwarrior  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.5    one month ago

Like Flynn???

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.2.12  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.10    one month ago

OH thank god, can I hold you to that?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.13  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.12    one month ago

Gee, SP, CAN you?

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.2.14  Split Personality  replied to  1stwarrior @2.2.11    one month ago

When Was Flyyn on the Joint Chiefs?

When was he sworn in as NSA and when were those phone calls?

And when did he finally register retroactively as an agent for a foreign government?

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.2.15  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.13    one month ago

longer than a minute, LMAO.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.15    one month ago

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.2.17  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2.9    one month ago
Do you see the problem with your scenario?

No, the POTUS never gives written orders, EO's or memos directly to the Pentagon.

Those come through the DefSec or NSA, usually both.

Two people plus Trump circumvented that process evading the checks & balances.

Got it?

O'Brian fixing the issue is not a credit to Trump, he did that in spite of Trump.

When Nixon was drunk and talking out loud about creating a distraction, Schlessinger and the Joint Chiefs

did the same thing to Nixon by making sure that all orders went through the whole chain of command.

It's not a left - right thing. 

But thanks for usual partisan nonsense.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.2.18  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.16    one month ago

So I guess these means your still talking to me?

Damn.

jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.19  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.18    one month ago

Man, what gave you a clue?

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.2.20  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.19    one month ago
we are done, I won't continue with someone who encourages and cheers insubordination and insurrection.

Sorry, I took you at your word.

My bad.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.21  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.20    one month ago

yeah, and I took you for an American who cares about the law.

My bad.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.2.22  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.21    one month ago

Get back to me when you find out what the law IS

as opposed to what you think it is or should be.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.23  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.22    one month ago

Why, do you need an explanation?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
2.2.24  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.17    one month ago

Please shows us where in the Constitution that the President cannot issue EO/EA's directly to the Pentagon; but must go through some other office first?

An executive order is declaration by the president or a governor which has the force of law, usually based on existing statutory powers. They do not require any action by the Congress or state legislature to take effect, and the legislature cannot overturn them.  For example, in anticipation of the Gulf War, President George H. Bush signed  Executive Order 12724 , which prohibited transactions with Iraq and summarily transferred ownership of Iraqi government property in the United States to the United States government. The executive order was issued pursuant to Congressional statutes, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the National Emergencies Act. Recent presidential executive orders, memoranda, and proclamations are available  here .  Virtually all presidential executive orders are published in the Federal Register .  

So Cornell doesn't list that EO/EA's have to travel from the President through a third party.

How about Justia Law?

SECTION 2. Clause 1. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Office, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.


ANNOTATIONS

While the President customarily delegates supreme command of the forces in active service, there is no constitutional reason why he should do so, and he has been known to resolve personally important questions of military policy. Lincoln early in 1862 issued orders for a general advance in the hopes of stimulating McClellan to action; Wilson in 1918 settled the question of an independent American command on the Western Front; Truman in 1945 ordered that the bomb be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 206  As against an enemy in the field, the President possesses all the powers which are accorded by international law to any supreme commander. “He may invade the hostile country, and subject it to the sovereignty and authority of the United States.” 207   In the absence of attempts by Congress to limit his power, he may establish and prescribe the jurisdiction and procedure of military commissions, and of tribunals in the nature of such commissions, in territory occupied by Armed Forces of the United States, and his authority to do this sometimes survives cessation of hostilities. 208   He may employ secret agents to enter the enemy’s lines and obtain information as to its strength, resources, and movements. 209   He may, at least with the assent of Congress, authorize commercial intercourse with the enemy. 210   He may also requisition property and compel services from American citizens and friendly aliens who are situated within the theater of military operations when necessity requires, thereby incurring for the United States the obligation to render “just compensation.” 211   By the same warrant, he may bring hostilities to a conclusion by arranging an armistice, stipulating conditions that may determine to a great extent the ensuing peace. 212   He may not, however, effect a permanent acquisition of territory, 213   though he may govern recently acquired territory until Congress sets up a more permanent regime. 214

The President is the ultimate tribunal for the enforcement of the rules and regulations that Congress adopts for the government of the forces, and that are enforced through courts-martial. 215   Indeed, until 1830, courts-martial were convened solely on the President’s authority as Commander in Chief. 216   Such rules and regulations are, moreover, it seems, subject in wartime to his amendment at discretion. 217   Similarly, the power of Congress to “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces” (Art. I, § 8, cl. 14) did not prevent President Lincoln from promulgating, in April, 1863, a code of rules to govern the conduct in the field of the armies of the United States, which was prepared at his instance by a commission headed by Francis Lieber and which later became the basis of all similar codifications both here and abroad. 218   One important power that the President lacks is that of choosing his subordinates, whose grades and qualifications are determined by Congress and whose appointment is ordinarily made by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, though undoubtedly Congress could if it wished vest their appointment in “the President alone.” 219   Also, the President’s power to dismiss an officer from the service, once unlimited, is today confined by statute in time of peace to dismissal “in pursuance of the sentence of a general court-martial or in mitigation thereof.” 220   But the provision is not regarded by the Court as preventing the President from displacing an officer of the Army or Navy by appointing with the advice and consent of the Senate another person in his place. 221   The President’s power of dismissal in time of war Congress has never attempted to limit.

The Commander-in-Chief a Civilian Officer. —Is the Commander-in-Chiefship a military or a civilian office in the contemplation of the Constitution? Unquestionably the latter. An opinion by a New York surrogate deals adequately, though not authoritatively, with the subject: “The President receives his compensation for his services, rendered as Chief Executive of the Nation, not for the individual parts of his duties. No part of his compensation is paid from sums appropriated for the military or naval forces; and it is equally clear under the Constitution that the President’s duties as Commander in Chief represent only a part of duties ex officio as Chief Executive [Article II, sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution] and that the latter’s office is a civil office. [Article II, section 1 of the Constitution . . . . ] The President does not enlist in, and he is not inducted or drafted into, the armed forces. Nor, is he subject to court-martial or other military discipline. On the contrary, Article II, section 4 of the Constitution provides that ‘The President, [Vice President] and All Civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ . . . The last two War Presidents, President Wilson and President Roosevelt, both clearly recognized the civilian nature of the President’s position as Commander in Chief. President Roosevelt, in his Navy Day Campaign speech at Shibe Park, Philadelphia, on October 27, 1944, pronounced this principle as follows:–‘It was due to no accident and no oversight that the framers of our Constitution put the command of our armed forces under civilian authority. It is the duty of the Commander in Chief to appoint the Secretaries of War and Navy and the Chiefs of Staff.’ It is also to be noted that the Secretary of War, who is the regularly constituted organ of the President for the administration of the military establishment of the Nation, has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be merely a civilian officer, not in military service. ( United States v. Burns , 79 U. S. (12 Wall. ) 246 (1871)). On the general principle of civilian supremacy over the military, by virtue of the Constitution, it has recently been said: ‘The supremacy of the civil over the military is one of our great heritages.’   Duncan v. Kahanamoku , 327 U. S. 304, 325 (1945).” 222


Seems they do not agree with you either. I bolded the funny part that the President can lead the US forces personally; and issue direct orders that are to be carried out. It even provides examples from both Truman and Lincoln.

Now onto your complete ignoring of facts. 

Did O'Brian go to Trump and get his permission first before cancelling the EO's? It is a simple yes or no answer. If not then he exceeded his authority and is no better than Milley.

So what legal leg does Milley have to stand on again? He placed himself in the position of CiC. He had the officers beneath him swear loyalty oaths (That is real sedition, not the BS that Democrats are hyperventilating about from Jan 6th). He hid conversations with China from Trump. Furthermore  he promised China he would warn them of any attacks. The word for that is traitor by the way. 

Glad to know the left still loves their criminals.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.2.25  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2.24    one month ago

You don't know the facts yet.

You are reacting to titillating bits and pieces of a book that was written to make $$

and you are wasting huge amounts of time & energy doing so.

Thanks for usual cheap shot sweeping generalizations too.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.26  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2.24    one month ago

Well done Sir!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.27  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.25    one month ago
You don't know the facts yet.

Well, let's get to them. Let's put Milley under oath and find out. I'm sure you'll join me in a fact finding mission, right?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.28  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2.24    one month ago
So Cornell doesn't list that EO/EA's have to travel from the President through a third party.

Yet your own link cites the fact that the authority does in fact derive FROM a 'third party', the Congress. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.29  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.2.28    one month ago

So even you can recognize the difference. is what he claimed wrong or something?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.30  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.29    one month ago
So even you can recognize the difference.

The 'difference' of WHAT Tex. 

is what he claimed wrong or something?

Yes and I clearly cited exactly how it's wrong. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.31  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.26    one month ago

Nope, not at all, never!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.32  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.3    one month ago

"Just The News is not a legitimate news source. Its founder is a well known conspiracy theorist."

Here is how 'truthful and accurate' the 'source' is.

I don't know why it's allowed as a source here.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.33  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.32    one month ago
"Just The News is not a legitimate news source.

According to the site we use, it's ok to use it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.34  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.33    one month ago

John Solomon is not a legitimate reporter. Its that simple. I believe the FBI was investigating him for involvement in the whole Giuliani -Ukrainian debacle. 

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
2.2.35  gooseisback  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.34    one month ago
I believe the FBI was investigating

Why in the fuck would you believe ANYTHING the FBI has to say after the Larry Nassar debacle, they are liars!

McKayla Maroney at Larry Nassar hearing: FBI made 'entirely false claims about what I said' - CNNPolitics

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.36  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.2.30    one month ago
The 'difference' of WHAT Tex.

FFS.

The difference between going THROUGH a third party and a third party granting the power to do EO's.

Keep up.

Yes and I clearly cited exactly how it's wrong. 

Well, please DO share with all of us, because I certainly don't see where you proved anyone wrong about a damn thing.

Do you understand the difference between what he claimed and what you came up with???????

 
 
 
Trotsky's Spectre
Freshman Quiet
2.3  Trotsky's Spectre  replied to  Texan1211 @2    one month ago
'I believe that statement would qualify as "aiding and abetting" the enemy.'

Alternatively, provoking 'enemies' to act against us perfects that condition.

This leads to a question: are you, Texan1211, working for the People's Republic of China?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Trotsky's Spectre @2.3    one month ago

What a completely, fucked up, asinine question.

 
 
 
Trotsky's Spectre
Freshman Quiet
2.3.2  Trotsky's Spectre  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.1    one month ago
'What a completely, f↯⋾⩩⩒p, asinine question.'

It is a completely legitimate question. The Chinese government believes it faced possibly imminent US attack; one of the few who, if lacking diplomatic credentials, has the stature to approach high level Chinese authorities and defuse a potentially catastrophic situation. And this is depicted as aiding the enemy?

That is an extremely serious accusation, which is why it doesn't set well when reversed. Yet given what is at stake, it might be more judicious NOT to blow off the question again but rather give the matter sober reflection. Bear in mind that there are still those who believe that the attempt to interfere with January 6 electoral certification belongs to such a scheme.

The 'aiding and abetting the enemy' remark in the context of a potential described does raise issues. I have no problem denying that I work for the PRC. I oppose terror resolutely. And while I confess freely that the rule of Kapital must end, I don't advocate for the overthrow of the US regime but urge for its democratization. I assume you will be fine declaring the same. Theatrics are unnecessary. I answered simply. You can do the same.

So again ...

Are you an agent of the People's Republic of China? Do you identify with a terror faction seeking to harm the US citizenry or destroy its political structure? Do you seek to stir up some foreign action to bring war to US soil?

Your reply will determine my assessment of your participation on this board for the future.

Thank-you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.3  Texan1211  replied to  Trotsky's Spectre @2.3.2    one month ago
It is a completely legitimate question.

No, it is and always will be asinine.

And this is depicted as aiding the enemy?

What in the HELL would any one call it when you warn the enemy of an impending attack? I don't give a fuck what anyone else calls it, I know what it is.

So again ... Are you an agent of the People's Republic of China?

Still asinine. Why are you doubling down on it?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.3.4  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.3    one month ago

When was China designated as an enemy of the United States Tex? Please cite the date.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
2.3.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Dulay @2.3.4    one month ago

China isn't an enemy, but Russia is? I'd like to see your thinking on this.

What about North Korea, or Iran?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.3.6  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @2.3.5    one month ago
China isn't an enemy, but Russia is? I'd like to see your thinking on this. What about North Korea, or Iran?

That strawman fallacy isn't worthy of serious discussion. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2.3.7  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.3    one month ago
"What in the HELL would any one call it when you warn the enemy of an impending attack?"

"An impending attack"?  If it HAD been an impending attack, Milley would probably have saved the world from nuclear armageddon.  

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
2.3.8  GregTx  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3.7    one month ago

Or enabled the death of a large number of Americans....

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2.3.9  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  GregTx @2.3.8    one month ago

So which of the two would be your preference?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2.3.10  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Greg Jones @2.3.5    one month ago
"China isn't an enemy, but Russia is? I'd like to see your thinking on this."

My thinking is that America just GOTTA have an enemy, cause stopping the "war machine" would fail the economy.  Where there isn't any real enemy, create one. 

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
2.3.11  GregTx  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3.9    one month ago

A binary question...ok, I would choose the world being saved from nuclear armageddon. In return let me ask you, if General Li had been the one to call General Milley and tell him that if China were going to attack the U.S. he would let him know beforehand, what do you think the repercussions would be?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2.3.12  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  GregTx @2.3.11    one month ago

A totally different personality, so not really a comparison, because Xi Jinping is not the same kind of person Trump was (is) so the likelihood of such a call hardly exists, but if General Li did make such a call without Xi Jinping's knowledge or approval, it could be the last call he would ever make.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.13  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.3.4    one month ago
When was China designated as an enemy of the United States Tex? Please cite the date.

Jesus, please start arguing what I actually write instead of using your imagination.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.14  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3.7    one month ago
"An impending attack"?  If it HAD been an impending attack, Milley would probably have saved the world from nuclear armageddon.  

There was no attack, This is all hypothetical--except for the part where Milley promised to warn China before we attacked them.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.3.15  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.13    one month ago
Jesus, please start arguing what I actually write instead of using your imagination.

WHO is the 'enemy' in your statement below Tex? 

What in the HELL would any one call it when you warn the enemy of an impending attack?

Please be specific. Your above reply to Buzz indicates that you meant China. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.16  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.3.15    one month ago

When you keep up, I'll deign to answer some of your sillier questions.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Milley may have decided to talk his way out of it. One might reasonably surmise Woke General Mark Milley gave those stories to Woodward thinking he would be praised. Now realizing it’s not playing well with non-deranged people outside his DC bubble, he’s trying to walk them back.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Sen. Rubio Demands Biden Fire Gen. Milley Over Secret Calls With China

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    one month ago

Of course he does. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    one month ago
Of course he does. 

Think about it John, If Woodward's book is accurate, General Milley conspired against President Trump and in effect installed himself as the de facto Commander in Chief post-election. Meanwhile, he alerted his Chinese counterpart.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.1    one month ago

Doesn't it sound odd to hear people now supporting insurrection, overthrowing the legal government of the United States, and "loyalty pledges"?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.2    one month ago

We did have an insurrection. It may have come from one military officer. Let us hope that by morning Milley tells us that it's not true!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

"The military community erupted Tuesday in response to reports that Gen. Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, held secret phone calls and meetings in a surreptitious effort to sidestep the authority of his then-commander-in-chief, President Donald Trump.

"If this is true GEN Milley must resign,"  tweeted Alexander Vindman,  a retired Army lieutenant colonel who in 2019 was a key witness against Trump in impeachment hearings.  

Milley's actions include making secret calls to the chief military officer in Beijing, and summoning top American military officers to a clandestine gathering to demand that they only obey command orders that came through Milley, according to the authors of a forthcoming book. 

The actions are reportedly described in a forthcoming book, "Peril," by Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa. Milley took the unprecedented actions because he was afraid Trump might launch a nuclear strike, the authors wrote. 

Vindman expressed outrage that Milley directly and independently contacted the foreign military official.

"He usurped civilian authority, broke Chain of Command, and violated the sacrosanct principle of civilian control over the military," Vindman wrote. "It's an extremely dangerous precedent. You can't simply walk away from that."

If the account in the book is accurate, Milley should be brought up on charges, according to one Pentagon official who spoke to Just the News.

"He isn't a military dictator, and this isn't his decision to make, to unilaterally contact a foreign government," said the official, who is not authorized to speak to the press. "I would expect him to be brought up on charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice."  

In addition to personally calling the communist Chinese official, Milley on Jan. 8 elicited oaths from senior officers inside the National Military Command Center inside the Pentagon, according to the book's authors. The four-star general aimed to solidify his authority over military decisions that belong to the commander in chief.

"No matter what you are told, you do the procedure," Milley said, according to the authors. "You do the process. And I'm part of that procedure." He looked each officer in the eye, and asked them to verbally agree.

The meeting took place around the time Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told Democrats that she had been assured that safeguards were in place to prevent Trump from launching a nuclear weapon.  

Trump was not on record as having said he planned to order a nuclear strike.

Milley could not immediately be reached for comment.


 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
5.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @5    one month ago
The military community erupted

One is quoted by name and one is not, but hey let's turn 2 into the military community. Damn I hate partisan writing.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @5.2    one month ago

How dare they!

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
5.2.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.1    one month ago

So happy you agree ...

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
8  GregTx    one month ago

If any of this is true, General Milley is guilty of treason imo.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1  Texan1211  replied to  GregTx @8    one month ago

Without a doubt.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
8.2  Ronin2  replied to  GregTx @8    one month ago

Note to the left, this is what sedition really looks like!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

Maybe Milley should be commended for preventing China from making a pre-emptive strike caused by a stupid move on the part of Trump. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9    one month ago

After all, Trump's  behaviour was so irrational (the"fix", the "stolen" election) at the time it is hard to know WHAT he might have done.  I recall posting a comment around that time that I hoped he was not going to be allowed near the "button". 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
9.2  Ronin2  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9    one month ago

That is not how our government works.

The military doesn't get to usurp the power of CiC because they feel like it; don't trust it CiC; or more than likely in this case didn't like the CiC.

If Milley did have direct talks with China w/o Trump's knowledge- then he is guilty of treason.

If Milley asked for loyalty oaths from the officers beneath him; and they gave it, or stayed silent about it- then they are all guilty of sedition.

If this is true; and by Milley's silence it damn well sure looks like it, then he needs to be fired now- and be put up on military charges along with those officers under him that were involved. 

How the hell did a narcissistic, woke, incompetent, jackass like Milley ever rise so high in the military? Better still why was he kept around so long in DC?

The left are all loving Milley right now. But from the looks of it they are backing a traitor and seditionist. The left really does love it's criminals. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ronin2 @9.2    one month ago

As far as how your government "works", I've seen some pretty unbelievable things over the past year. I'm sure I'm not the only person in the world who shook his head during that time.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
9.2.2  Ronin2  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.2.1    one month ago

If you are referring to Biden; you can thank the morons on the left and US media for not vetting him properly. Seems "not being Trump" doesn't make Biden a good President; or even a competent one for that matter. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9.2.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ronin2 @9.2.2    one month ago

I have no great love for EITHER Trump or Biden.  And that does NOT mean that I prefer Justin Trudeau OR Xi Jinping, and in fact about the only leaders these days whom I respect are  the PM of New Zealand and the leader of Singapore. The only leaders I can recall that I ever truly admired were Justin's father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and JFK.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9    one month ago
Maybe Milley should be commended for preventing China from making a pre-emptive strike caused by a stupid move on the part of Trump. 

Senator Rubio probably said it best yesterday when he asked What if General Milley thought Biden was senile and took the same actions?  Then we know that he would have been Court-Martialed!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9.3.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.3    one month ago

You're comparing Biden with Trump?  Well, thanks, I'll be signing off here soon with a smile on my face.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.3.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.3.1    one month ago

Have a good night. Sometime soon we need to discuss Peking Duck.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9.3.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.3.2    one month ago

Perhaps a few years ago I posted an article about Peking Duck, but happy to discuss it with you.

food-drink-peking-ducks-chinese-chinese_foods-eat-tzun679_low.jpg

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.3.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.3.3    one month ago

Never had it. What's it like?

I'll wait on that. Talk later

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.4  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9    one month ago

Milley should be court-martialed.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
9.5  Ronin2  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9    one month ago

I have been meaning to ask. What stupid move are you referring to that doesn't damn well exist? Prove that Trump was planning on moving against China; or anyone else for that matter. Trump started no new military conflicts during his entire 4 years; no matter how much the left howled and screamed about Trump being unpredictable and unhinged. Can't say the same about any of his predecessors; who all loved starting new military conflicts. Trump also tried to get the US out of Syria and Afghanistan. He sounds like a real damn war monger./S 

Obviously there was none. Milley was just being an incompetent TDS driven partisan moron. 

Since the left loves what ifs. What if Trump found out about Milley's calls to China, and stating he would "warn China of any US attacks". Then hears about the loyalty oaths that Milley forced his subordinate officers to swear to him. Trump does his normal and shit cans Milley and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Then Trump tears into China in a tirade. China thinks that their stooge in Washington is gone; and Trump is unstable. China launches a preemptive strike on the US. All thanks to Milley the moron overstepping his duties.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9.5.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ronin2 @9.5    one month ago
"What stupid move are you referring to that doesn't damn well exist?"

Who knows?  A leader who makes it clear to the public that he won't wear a mask (great leadership), suggests inserting bleach or disinfectants as a cure, says he delayed containing the virus because he didn't want people to panic, thought that the butcher NK's Kim was his best friend, tries to convince everyone that the election was stolen from him and that he actually won has the possibility of doing any possible crazy thing. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
9.5.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.5.1    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
9.5.3  Ronin2  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.5.1    one month ago

In other words not one damn thing that had a direct affect on Milley's job.

Thank you for proving that Milley had no damn reason to do what he did. He was just another partisan asshole with rampant TDS and a Napoleon complex.  

The fact that Trump didn't try to start any wars further proves that Milley was wrong.

Milley is a traitor and seditionist. He and those subordinate officers that took his oath (or stayed silent about it and what Milley was doing) should all be fired and then court martialed. If there are enough of them they can open a special prison for them called the Woke TDS Detainment Center.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9.5.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ronin2 @9.5.3    one month ago

I appreciate the fact that you are of the opinion that I stand equal to the Encyclopedia Britannica in being a source of PROOF of anything.  That makes me feel that whatever I say is perfectly correct.  Thank you for the compliment.

Now, a person with mental illness, gets a gun and kills a bunch of students in school, but he has never killed kids in school before, never said anything about doing or wanting to do it, and in fact such a thing never crossed his mind before.  But according to you, since he never even thought about it before, he can't possibly be considered capable of killing those kids. I love your sense of logic.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
9.5.5  Ronin2  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.5.4    one month ago

Far better than yours it seems.

Both you and Milley were dead wrong. Trump didn't plan on starting anything. So Milley committing treason and sedition were all for nothing; and he deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of military law.

By the way, you do know that Milley is not next in line to be CiC- that would be Mike Pence. Funny Milley didn't run things past Pence first instead of assuming command himself

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.5.6  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @9.5.3    one month ago
In other words not one damn thing that had a direct affect on Milley's job.

Actually, Milley's job includes evaluating whether orders are LEGAL. 

I'm pretty sure that an order to attack China 'because I say so' from a petulant narcissistic sociopath would be illegal. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.5.7  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.5.6    one month ago
I'm pretty sure that an order to attack China 'because I say so' from a petulant narcissistic sociopath would be illegal. 

But NO SUCH ORDER WAS EVER ISSUED.

If Milley was so concerned, why did he refuse to go through the proper protocols?

Milley was wrong, and no amount of spin will ever, ever change that fact.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.5.8  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.5.7    one month ago
If Milley was so concerned, why did he refuse to go through the proper protocols?

What 'proper protocols' are those Tex? Please post a link...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.5.9  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.5.7    one month ago

Oh ya and I am STILL waiting for someone to cite the order that Milley allegedly failed to follow. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.5.10  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.5.8    one month ago
Please post a link...

is your Google broken?

Ever heard of the 25th Amendment?

BTFW, I could find no link to support that a President can't order attacks because he says so.

I just can't see where anyone in their right mind would believe that telling the enemy you would warn him of an impending attack isn't right. One of the stupidest, most fucked-up things I have heard of.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.5.11  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.5.9    one month ago
Oh ya and I am STILL waiting for someone to cite the order that Milley allegedly failed to follow. 

Fantastic!

Perhaps instead of looking to me for answers to that, why not ask whoever it was that stated it????????????

Who said he failed to follow an order, and when did they say it?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.5.12  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.5.10    one month ago
is your Google broken?

No, why do you ask? 

Ever heard of the 25th Amendment?

Yes, why do you ask? 

BTFW, I could find no link to support that a President can't order attacks because he says so.

Is your Google broken? Try the UCMJ. 

I just can't see where anyone in their right mind would believe that telling the enemy you would warn him of an impending attack isn't right. One of the stupidest, most fucked-up things I have heard of.

WHEN was China designated as an enemy of the United States Tex? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.5.13  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.5.11    one month ago
Perhaps instead of looking to me for answers to that, why not ask whoever it was that stated it????????????

Well gee Tex, you stated that Milley failed to follow 'proper protocol' and that he was wrong. 

So WHICH protocol are you talking about and WHAT was Milley wrong about? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.5.14  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.5.12    one month ago
No, why do you ask? 

Must be your penchant for demanding links.

Yes, why do you ask? 

The answer is obvious enough that I think you'll get it sometime.

Is your Google broken?

What a stupid thing to ask after I JUST told you I couldn't find any link to prove your claim.

WHEN was China designated as an enemy of the United States Tex? 

Well, I would hate to think we would attack an ally.

If we launched an attack on China, would they be considered our friends?

SMMFH

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.5.15  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.5.13    one month ago
Well gee Tex, you stated that Milley failed to follow 'proper protocol' and that he was wrong. 

You seem to have a firm grasp on what it is I wrote.

So WHICH protocol are you talking about and WHAT was Milley wrong about? 

Gee, I wonder if perhaps I mentioned the 25th Amendment for a reason ?

jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9.5.16  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dulay @9.5.12    one month ago
"WHEN was China designated as an enemy of the United States Tex?" 

It's been so designated by a couple of far right wing members of NT.  Oh the FEAR that China might advance past the world's number one nation...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.5.17  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.5.16    one month ago

Look, we are looking at hypotheticals here anyways.

China has not been declared an enemy, but is it not reasonable to assume that if we attacked China, then they would indeed be considered an enemy?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.5.18  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.5.14    one month ago
Must be your penchant for demanding links.

Or your attempt to deflect from the bullshit you post. 

What a stupid thing to ask after I JUST told you I couldn't find any link to prove your claim.

Oh, I didn't realize that your were unaware of the existence of search engines other than Google.

Oh and I find it telling that you think that the 'cuz I say so' of a petulant, narcissistic sociopath to attack a country could possibly be considered a LEGAL order. 

Well, I would hate to think we would attack an ally.

If we launched an attack on China, would they be considered our friends?

SMMFH

That is a deflection Tex.

50 US Code 2204 contains a definition of the term 'enemy' per US law. I suggest you review it. 

BTFW, refusing to kiss Trump's ass doesn't qualify as 'engaging in hostilities'. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.5.19  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.5.15    one month ago
Gee, I wonder if perhaps I mentioned the 25th Amendment for a reason ?

Well gee Tex, since the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is NOT a member of the Cabinet, HOW is the 25th Amendment relevant? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.5.20  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.5.17    one month ago

I'm pretty fucking sure that the Congress, not the POTUS, has the sole authority to declare war [an enemy]. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.5.21  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.5.18    one month ago
Oh, I didn't realize that your were unaware of the existence of search engines other than Google.

Please stop fantasizing about what it is you think you know about me.

Oh and I find it telling that you think that the 'cuz I say so' of a petulant, narcissistic sociopath to attack a country could possibly be considered a LEGAL order. 

So what? Why would I care what you consider "telling"?

That is a deflection Tex.

What it is is common fucking sense, hence your failure to recognize it.

50 US Code 2204 contains a definition of the term 'enemy' per US law. I suggest you review it. 

Sorry, I didn't need to look up what an enemy is. But I am glad you learned what one is, too!

BTFW, refusing to kiss Trump's ass doesn't qualify as 'engaging in hostilities'. 

That is true.

BTFW, grass is often green, and water is wet.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.5.22  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.5.20    one month ago
I'm pretty fucking sure that the Congress, not the POTUS, has the sole authority to declare war [an enemy].

Very good!!!

Ain't learning fun!!!!????!!!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9.5.23  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @9.5.17    one month ago

If America attacked China, then of course China would be considered an enemy, just the same as if China were to attack the USA.  But that hasn't happened, and as long as sane people are in charge, I don't think it ever will.  It isn't hypothetical that there are members of NT who declare that China isn't just "an" enemy of the USA, but that it is the number one enemy of the USA.  Can you imagine what it would be like in both countries if all trade between them stopped cold?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
9.5.24  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @9.5.6    one month ago

No, that is not Milley's job. God where does the left get this shit from?

Milley has two options if he doesn't like the President's orders, and cannot persuade the the President to change his mind. Carry through with them to the best of his abilities- and work with the President for the best possible outcome. Or refuse to follow the orders and resign. That is it. No other damn options.

Or why else did Milley not assume command for Slleepy China Joe Biden in Afghanistan? Milley supposedly warned Joe what would happen if he removed all US troops first and shut down Bagram before the evacuation. Milley chose the gutless option of staying and trying to help Biden make the best of the fucked up situation that was of their making. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.5.25  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @9.5.24    one month ago
Milley has two options if he doesn't like the President's orders, and cannot persuade the the President to change his mind.

WHAT order? 

You have failed to cite what article of the UCMJ Milley violated OR what order he failed to follow. 

Innuendo doesn't cut it. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.5.26  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.5.23    one month ago
If America attacked China, then of course China would be considered an enemy, just the same as if China were to attack the USA.  But that hasn't happened, and as long as sane people are in charge, I don't think it ever will. 

That is my entire fucking point.

The whole thing was hypothetical because of course Trump never ordered any attack.

Even you would have to admit that if we were to attack China, then alerting them to the attack would be treasonous.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.5.27  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.5.22    one month ago
Very good!!! Ain't learning fun!!!!????!!!

I suppose that it is good that you've learned that the POTUS ordering an attack on a foreign nation does NOT inherently define that nation as an enemy under the law. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.5.28  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.5.27    one month ago

Lol, still tilting at windmills, I see.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.5.29  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.5.28    one month ago

I've always viewed learning as quite real and important Tex, but you be you. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.5.30  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.5.29    one month ago

I see no evidence to support that claim.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.5.31  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.5.30    one month ago

Willful ignorance often has that effect. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.5.32  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.5.31    one month ago

You shouldn't blame willful ignorance for your failure to provide evidence of your claim.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.5.33  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.5.32    one month ago

I haven't failed to provide evidence for anything Tex. The deflection of your comment is juvenile. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.5.34  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.5.33    one month ago

This is starting to get fun!

Please do go on!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9.5.35  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @9.5.26    one month ago
"Even you would have to admit..."

EVEN me?  EVEN me?  Wow!!!  Yes, I agree that would have been treasonous.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.5.36  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.5.35    one month ago

great, we both recognize that alerting a country your own country is about to attack is treasonous.

Perfect!

Kind if has been my whole POINT here all along.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9.5.37  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @9.5.36    one month ago

You called that a "hypothetical" Tex.  Although I cannot find it now, I myself posted on NT my concern as the election was approaching that Trump might start a war to solidify support behind him.  And I commend Milley for also seeing that possibility because of the personality and actions and statements of Trump back then, those things I listed in a comment above.  IMO great minds think alike and I'll bet there were lots of others who were worried about it as well. 

In fact there happens to be another side to the story the Republicans are jumping up and down about...

Retired general says Milley’s calls with China are normal and being 'sensationalized'

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.5.38  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.5.37    one month ago

All hypothetical and Chicken Little protestations.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10  JohnRussell    one month ago

Good Morning America barely mentioned Gen Milley today (less than 30 seconds) .

Some "bombshell" issue. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @10    one month ago

MSNBC and CNN are talking about him like he is a hero.

Is anyone surprised?

It's just another thing for Klain & Rice to defend.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
10.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @10    one month ago

You mean show hosted by the Democratic Sean spicer broadcast the party line? 

Wow! 

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
11  evilgenius    one month ago

IF the book is correct about Milley, then the book must also be correct about Trump's deteriorating mental state. So then logically you either believe the book is false or Milley is a minor hero. Personally I don't form opinions on political books without other sources of evidence. IF appropriate agencies want to know more I'll follow along and then form an opinion.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilgenius @11    one month ago

Really?  So if a book contains a single fact everything else in it must be true?

You may have just verified every book ever written.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
11.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1    one month ago
Really?  So if a book contains a single fact everything else in it must be true?
You may have just verified every book ever written.

Conversely, you just posted ANOTHER strawman. 

 
 
 
squiggy
Freshman Quiet
12  squiggy    one month ago

What happened to the Marine 0-5 who spoke his conscience? Milley goes to the bottom of that toilet.

 
 
 
squiggy
Freshman Quiet
12.1  squiggy  replied to  squiggy @12    one month ago

… and there are no kiss-and-tell books among the honorable.

 
 
 
squiggy
Freshman Quiet
12.2  squiggy  replied to  squiggy @12    one month ago

… and there are no kiss-and-tell books among the honorable.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  squiggy @12.2    one month ago

How many trumpturdians have books out?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Tessylo @12.2.1    one month ago
there are no kiss-and-tell books among the honorable.

Trump is being done in by his own kind then. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
13  Sunshine    one month ago

Wonder what other treasonable acts he has done?

 
 
 
squiggy
Freshman Quiet
14  squiggy    one month ago

So many have forgotten the terror of Al Haig and "I'm in control here."

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
14.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  squiggy @14    one month ago

Some have forgotten the Generals who actually won wars and didn't grovel to get promoted.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
15  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

This just in:

"A spokesperson for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen.   Mark Milley   is defending allegations of "secret" calls with his   Chinese   counterpart, saying the conversations are "vital" to "reducing tensions" and "avoiding unintended consequences or conflict," maintaining that the calls were coordinated with high-level defense officials. 

"The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs regularly communicates with Chiefs of Defense across the world, including with China and Russia. These conversations remain vital to improving mutual understanding of U.S. national security interests, reducing tensions, providing clarity and avoiding unintended consequences or conflict," Milley spokesman Col. Dave Butler said in a statement Wednesday. 

Butler said that Milley's calls "with the Chinese and others in October and January were in keeping with these duties and responsibilities conveying reassurance in order to maintain strategic stability." 




So now we know the call was real!

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
15.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    one month ago
So now we know the call was real!

Oh good! Now 'we' can continue entertaining our readers (hey guys, hey gals) by flogging dead horses with dead squirrels.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
15.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Hallux @15.1    one month ago

No, simply court martialing a traitor and seditionist Milley will be more than enough.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
15.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @15.1.1    one month ago

Please cite the article of the UCMJ that Milley violated. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
15.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @15.1.1    one month ago

Silence ensues...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
15.1.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @15.1.2    one month ago

Um..  Ronin did.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
15.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @15.1.4    one month ago

Um, no he didn't.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
15.1.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @15.1.5    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
15.1.7  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @15.1.2    one month ago

3. Sedition- when Milley made those officers swear loyalty oaths to him. Those officers that swore the oath; and those failed to report it can be charged with 4 and 5. Milley was not (and never will be CiC); when he took over those powers that is the very definition of sedition. Not the Jan 6th BS the left has been hyperventilating over. 

A service member of the United States armed forces who seeks to overthrow lawful civil or military order by seditious or mutinous acts either through violence or disobedience could face punishment under Article 94 of the UCMJ. Accusations of mutiny and sedition are some of the most serious in the military. While a remote chance of occurring, even the less serious offenses found within Article 94 could carry with them the penalty of death, r egardless of whether the actions were taken in a time of war or peace.
  • A simple act of disobedience—the refusal to obey an order—could be all the government needs to accuse you of mutiny under Article 94.
  • Should you be convicted of any of the charges under this article, you could face extraordinarily tough sentencing.
  • Even some lesser included offenses include extensive maximum jail time—up to a decade—and force you out of the military with a dishonorable discharge and a loss of all military benefits and pay.

You could be the target of gross overreach by the government and its ruthless prosecutors. Bilecki Law Group will help you fight back against these charges and secure the best possible outcome in your case.

Defining Article 94 of the UCMJ

All of the  articles  of the UCMJ requires prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a handful of critical assumptions—known as elements—to convict you of a crime. Article 94 governs two separate offenses—mutiny and sedition. From most to least serious:

    1. Mutiny by creating violence or disturbance
      1. That the accused created violence or a disturbance; and
      2. That the accused created this violence or disturbance with intent to usurp or override lawful military order
    2. Mutiny by refusing to obey orders or perform a duty
      1. That the accused refused to obey orders or otherwise do the accused’s duty;
      2. That the accused in refusing to obey orders or perform duty acted in concert with another person or persons; and
      3. That the accused did so with the intent to usurp or override lawful military authority.
    3. Sedition
      1. That the accused created revolt, violence, or disturbance against lawful civil authority;
      2. That the accused acted in concert with another person or persons; and
      3. That the accused did so with the intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of that authority
    4. Failure to prevent or suppress a mutiny or sedition
      1. That an offense of mutiny or sedition was committed in the presence of the accused; and
      2. That the accused failed to do the accused’s utmost to prevent and suppress the mutiny or sedition
    5. Failure to report a mutiny or sedition
      1. That an offense of mutiny or sedition occurred;
      2. That that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the offense was taking place; and
      3. That the accused failed to take all reasonable means to inform the accused’s superior commissioned officer or commander of the offense.
    6. Attempted mutiny
      1. That the accused committed a certain overt act;
      2. That the act was done with specific intent to commit the offense of mutiny;
      3. That the act amounted to more than mere preparation; and
      4. That the act apparently tended to effect the commission of the offense of mutiny

If that doesn't work, fire him and dishonorably discharge him and try him for sedition and treason as a civilian. 

Treason can broadly mean betrayal or treachery, but it is a federal crime — and the only crime expressly defined by the Constitution. Treason only applies to American citizens and can be committed by “levying war” against the U.S. or by giving American enemies “aid and comfort.” Both of these crimes require concrete action as well as an intent to betray the nation , according to the National Constitution Center. There have only been a few treason prosecutions in American history, and there has only been one person indicted for treason since 1954 and the last time someone was convicted was in 1952.

When Milley called the Chinese and promised to warn his counterpart of any US attack- that is Treason. China is not our friend, and China is definitely not our ally. 

Sedition is a federal crime that falls short of the offense of treason. While the crime of treason requires action, sedition is any conspiracy to overthrow, put down or to destroy by force the government of the United States. This includes preventing, hindering or delaying the execution of any law of the United States or seizing, taking or possessing any property of the United States. Merely advocating for the use of force does not qualify as sedition as it is most likely protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.  

Think Milley wasn't hindering Trump's ability as CiC with his actions? That his actions didn't pose an imminent threat to the US? That having the chain of military command go through him wouldn't have created conflict in the case of an emergency? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @15.1.7    one month ago
sedition is any conspiracy to overthrow, put down or to destroy by force the government of the United States.

it takes more than one person to commit sedition

who else are you planning on indicting? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @15.1.7    one month ago
Treason only applies to American citizens and can be committed by “levying war” against the U.S. or by giving American enemies “aid and comfort.”

You wouldnt even be able to prove that China is an "enemy" of the US let alone that Milley gave them "aid and comfort". 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
15.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @15.1.7    one month ago

I find it hilarious and sort of sad that you actually block quote the definition of sedition and STILL don't realize that Milley's actions do NOT qualify. 

Think Milley wasn't hindering Trump's ability as CiC with his actions?

AGAIN! You block quoted the violation and even put it in bold and STILL do not understand WTF it MEANS. 

It states that the violation would be hindering a LAW Ronin, NOT a POTUS actions. Trump is NOT the LAW, no matter what he or you want to believe. 

That his actions didn't pose an imminent threat to the US?

Hyperbolic much? 

That having the chain of military command go through him wouldn't have created conflict in the case of an emergency? 

If there were a state of emergency while Trump was wallowing in his electoral loss, I can only hope that there would be a level headed leader to protect this nation. That isn't and never has been Trump. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
16  Jeremy Retired in NC    one month ago

the book, authored by Washington Post associate editor

A book written about Trump.  By a Washington Post editor.  And we are all supposed to take this as absolute fact?  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.1  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @16    one month ago

Unlike Faux 'news' and alt-right sites - I'm sure the author verifies all sources.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
17  Tessylo    one month ago

[DELETED]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
18  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Good news:

There will be a hearing for Milley on Tuesday.

It looks like Biden's handlers are going to try and ride this out. That will keep it all right in the news!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
19  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Reporter: "Did General Milley do the right thing, sir?"

President Biden: "I have great confidence in General Milley."

OIP.lZnd2wf5zavK3L_7pjfejgHaE8?w=269&h=180&c=7&r=0&o=5&pid=1.7

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
19.1  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @19    one month ago

Milley had better watch his back. Biden may have just found his Afghanistan scapegoat. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
19.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @19.1    one month ago

The delusion is deep in that comment. 

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
19.1.2  GregTx  replied to  Dulay @19.1.1    one month ago

I'm not so sure. As you and others have pointed out, he's a Trump appointment.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Texan1211
Hallux
Ed-NavDoc
bugsy
JohnRussell
Gordy327
r.t..b...
Duck Hawk
Sparty On


39 visitors