Jinx 2 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

---

No. They get paid top dollar for having security clearances and they are afraid of losing it.

It has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with Trump threatening the status quo.

---

It is that, but it's also more. What really worries them is Trump's so-called "isolationism." Our foreign policy has been tailored to the interests of the military/industrial complex for several generations now. That influence has long needed reining in. A lot of rank and file Democrats used to agree, probably because they imagined one of their own would do the job. Did they ever think the top brass was going to like it? This is what reform looks like. This is what we voted for. No matter what one thinks of McRaven or Brennan, it's not for them to stand in the way.

---

Reform should not look corrupt and aimed at ignoring Russian interference in our election and helping Trump evade a legitimate investigation of whether his campaign actively colluded with them. If he's innocent, he shouldn't be afraid of the investigation; he should be cheering it on.

---

You know better than to think any president would welcome something like this. Were you cheering on the Benghazi investigation? Or the Fast and Furious investigation?

---

Cheering? No. Awaiting the outcome? Yes.

This is "enemy of the people" different. Attacking institutions different. It is NOT reform. Not yet anyway.

---

At this stage, there's no scenario where re-thinking our policies won't be considered an attack on our institutions. The threat is not to the institutions, but to the personal and political interests embedded within them.

---

Nope. This guy is corrosive to the press, to the rule of law, to the concept of objective truth (sharing that one leftist elements) and to the scientific method (getting help from judges like in the Monsanto case). And his white supremacist leanings are repulsive. There are institutions affected and we may lose a generation.

---

Trump is probably the most law-abiding president since Carter. You're mistaking media sound and fury for actual evidence of wrongdoing.

---

Nothing I said was about law breaking. Institution breaking.

---

What does "corrosive to the rule of law" mean?

---

Witch hunt. Comments about ongoing trials, judges, etc. Pardoning Arpaio before his conviction was even final.

But as to lawbreaking, the needle may have moved this afternoon.

---

The witches are coming home to roost.

---

As both of you completely ignore all the actual corruption, lies and criminality from Hillary & the Obama admin. Convenient.

riflebear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

---

No. They get paid top dollar for having security clearances and they are afraid of losing it.

It has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with Trump threatening the status quo.

---

It is that, but it's also more. What really worries them is Trump's so-called "isolationism." Our foreign policy has been tailored to the interests of the military/industrial complex for several generations now. That influence has long needed reining in. A lot of rank and file Democrats used to agree, probably because they imagined one of their own would do the job. Did they ever think the top brass was going to like it? This is what reform looks like. This is what we voted for. No matter what one thinks of McRaven or Brennan, it's not for them to stand in the way.

---

Reform should not look corrupt and aimed at ignoring Russian interference in our election and helping Trump evade a legitimate investigation of whether his campaign actively colluded with them. If he's innocent, he shouldn't be afraid of the investigation; he should be cheering it on.

---

You know better than to think any president would welcome something like this. Were you cheering on the Benghazi investigation? Or the Fast and Furious investigation?

---

Cheering? No. Awaiting the outcome? Yes.

This is "enemy of the people" different. Attacking institutions different. It is NOT reform. Not yet anyway.

---

At this stage, there's no scenario where re-thinking our policies won't be considered an attack on our institutions. The threat is not to the institutions, but to the personal and political interests embedded within them.

---

Nope. This guy is corrosive to the press, to the rule of law, to the concept of objective truth (sharing that one leftist elements) and to the scientific method (getting help from judges like in the Monsanto case). And his white supremacist leanings are repulsive. There are institutions affected and we may lose a generation.

---

Trump is probably the most law-abiding president since Carter. You're mistaking media sound and fury for actual evidence of wrongdoing.

---

Nothing I said was about law breaking. Institution breaking.

---

What does "corrosive to the rule of law" mean?

---

Witch hunt. Comments about ongoing trials, judges, etc. Pardoning Arpaio before his conviction was even final.

But as to lawbreaking, the needle may have moved this afternoon.

---

The witches are coming home to roost.

---

As both of you completely ignore all the actual corruption, lies and criminality from Hillary & the Obama admin. Convenient.

---

We need a donor page for folks with extreme Whataboutitis.

The election is over, your guy promised to lock her up, try holding him accountable instead of me, snowflake. I never voted for HRC and I was critical of Obama across a minimum of 14 issues. But I used to support my charges, saves on drool.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

---

No. They get paid top dollar for having security clearances and they are afraid of losing it.

It has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with Trump threatening the status quo.

---

It is that, but it's also more. What really worries them is Trump's so-called "isolationism." Our foreign policy has been tailored to the interests of the military/industrial complex for several generations now. That influence has long needed reining in. A lot of rank and file Democrats used to agree, probably because they imagined one of their own would do the job. Did they ever think the top brass was going to like it? This is what reform looks like. This is what we voted for. No matter what one thinks of McRaven or Brennan, it's not for them to stand in the way.

---

Reform should not look corrupt and aimed at ignoring Russian interference in our election and helping Trump evade a legitimate investigation of whether his campaign actively colluded with them. If he's innocent, he shouldn't be afraid of the investigation; he should be cheering it on.

---

You know better than to think any president would welcome something like this. Were you cheering on the Benghazi investigation? Or the Fast and Furious investigation?

---

Cheering? No. Awaiting the outcome? Yes.

This is "enemy of the people" different. Attacking institutions different. It is NOT reform. Not yet anyway.

---

At this stage, there's no scenario where re-thinking our policies won't be considered an attack on our institutions. The threat is not to the institutions, but to the personal and political interests embedded within them.

---

Nope. This guy is corrosive to the press, to the rule of law, to the concept of objective truth (sharing that one leftist elements) and to the scientific method (getting help from judges like in the Monsanto case). And his white supremacist leanings are repulsive. There are institutions affected and we may lose a generation.

---

Trump is probably the most law-abiding president since Carter. You're mistaking media sound and fury for actual evidence of wrongdoing.

---

Nothing I said was about law breaking. Institution breaking.

---

What does "corrosive to the rule of law" mean?

---

Witch hunt. Comments about ongoing trials, judges, etc. Pardoning Arpaio before his conviction was even final.

But as to lawbreaking, the needle may have moved this afternoon.

---

Which comments about trials and judges are you referring to? I've always been and will always be critical of presidents who undermine the rule of law, but the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt and I don't think there's anything wrong with saying so. Pardoning before conviction is perfectly legal and appropriate (see Ex Parte Garland, 71 US 333).

The needle may have moved a bit, but campaign finance violations are relatively minor. There hasn't been any arms smuggling to Central America. No major wars on blatantly false pretenses. No weaponizing of the IRS. That's the kind of thing that's truly corrosive.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

---

No. They get paid top dollar for having security clearances and they are afraid of losing it.

It has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with Trump threatening the status quo.

---

It is that, but it's also more. What really worries them is Trump's so-called "isolationism." Our foreign policy has been tailored to the interests of the military/industrial complex for several generations now. That influence has long needed reining in. A lot of rank and file Democrats used to agree, probably because they imagined one of their own would do the job. Did they ever think the top brass was going to like it? This is what reform looks like. This is what we voted for. No matter what one thinks of McRaven or Brennan, it's not for them to stand in the way.

---

Reform should not look corrupt and aimed at ignoring Russian interference in our election and helping Trump evade a legitimate investigation of whether his campaign actively colluded with them. If he's innocent, he shouldn't be afraid of the investigation; he should be cheering it on.

---

You know better than to think any president would welcome something like this. Were you cheering on the Benghazi investigation? Or the Fast and Furious investigation?

---

Cheering? No. Awaiting the outcome? Yes.

This is "enemy of the people" different. Attacking institutions different. It is NOT reform. Not yet anyway.

---

At this stage, there's no scenario where re-thinking our policies won't be considered an attack on our institutions. The threat is not to the institutions, but to the personal and political interests embedded within them.

---

Nope. This guy is corrosive to the press, to the rule of law, to the concept of objective truth (sharing that one leftist elements) and to the scientific method (getting help from judges like in the Monsanto case). And his white supremacist leanings are repulsive. There are institutions affected and we may lose a generation.

---

Trump is probably the most law-abiding president since Carter. You're mistaking media sound and fury for actual evidence of wrongdoing.

---

Nothing I said was about law breaking. Institution breaking.

---

What does "corrosive to the rule of law" mean?

---

Witch hunt. Comments about ongoing trials, judges, etc. Pardoning Arpaio before his conviction was even final.

But as to lawbreaking, the needle may have moved this afternoon.

---

Which comments about trials and judges are you referring to? I've always been and will always be critical of presidents who undermine the rule of law, but the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt and I don't think there's anything wrong with saying so. Pardoning before conviction is perfectly legal and appropriate (see Ex Parte Garland, 71 US 333).

The needle may have moved a bit, but campaign finance violations are relatively minor. There hasn't been any arms smuggling to Central America. No major wars on blatantly false pretenses. No weaponizing of the IRS. That's the kind of thing that's truly corrosive.

---

The IRS deal no longer bothers me. There was a change in policy, the organizations targeted were of all political stripes.

Meanwhile we bombed Syria without good evidence and Yemen is now one of Trump's ****holes thanks to our support of Saudis, whose form of worship has been the object of presidential animus.

Enemy of the people. Stupid, corrosive, wrong.

Quote:

---

The IRS deal no longer bothers me. There was a change in policy, the organizations targeted were of all political stripes.

Meanwhile we bombed Syria without good evidence and Yemen is now one of Trump's ****holes thanks to our support of Saudis, whose form of worship has been the object of presidential animus.

Enemy of the people. Stupid, corrosive, wrong.

---

You've been misinformed if you think the targeting of conservative groups wasn't grossly disproportionate. Furthermore, the liberal groups that were targeted weren't mainstream Democratic. They were groups like Occupy and the Green Party, which were critical of Obama. As the DC Circuit Court found in 2016, the victims were "conservative and anti-administration." In other words they were going after enemies on the left and the right. If that doesn't bother you, it should.