ADVERTISEMENT

Retired generals, admirals and top civilian defense officials say "No!" to presidential immunity

Bowlmania

Hall of Famer
Sep 23, 2016
10,454
19,573
113
Nineteen retired generals, admirals and former Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force have signed onto an amicus brief opposing Trump's claim of presidential immunity. Some highlights:
  • "[Trump's] theory that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution, if accepted, has the potential to severely undermine the Commander-in-Chief's legal and moral authority to lead the military forces as it would signal that they, but not he, must obey the rule of law. Under this theory the president could, with impunity, direct his national security appointees to, in turn, direct members of the military to execute plainly unlawful orders, placing those in the chain of command in an untenable position and irreparably harming the trust fundamental to civil-military relations. [Trump's] contention that the [potential for criminal prosecution of the president] would deter the president from taking the bold action the office requires, including military action, is profoundly ahistorical: the absence of absolute immunity has been assumed since the Founding and has presented no challenge to presidents discharging their duties."
  • "The rule of law is critical to the military's mission and to the people's trust in the armed forces. The military service members' duty to disobey unlawful orders plainly illustrates this point. This duty requires service members, who are bound to obey all lawful orders, to disregard patently unlawful orders from their superiors and prohibits service members from using such orders as a defense to criminal prosecution. Immunizing the Commander-in-Chief from criminal prosecution, as [Trump] argues for here, would fly in the face of that duty, creating the likelihood that service members will be placed in the impossible position of having to choose between following their Commander-in-Chief and obeying the laws enacted by Congress. And it would threaten the unity of the chain of command, from civilian leaders to military leaders down to units and service members, upon which the proper functioning of the military depends. Not only does [Trump's] approach threaten to inject chaos into military operations, it also threatens to damage - - perhaps irreparably - - the public's trust in the military and the willingness of recruits to join the armed forces."



 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Admiral Nathman was CO of my 2nd ship (1989-1990) when he was a Captain. Know him well - should say knew him since I've not seen him since around 2001 when we ran into each other while visiting Pacific Feet HQ. Great guy. I also know Admiral Locklear and General Krulak, but not well. Admiral Locklear played in a golf tournament I also played in with probably 70 or so other people, and we exchanged some pleasantries over beers after. He wouldn't recognize me if we ran into each other now. ;) General Krulak (retired) was our guest of honor at the NROTC's annual ball when I was at Ohio State. He has a great sense of humor. That's unrelated to the brief, of course, but it triggered some memories. I agree with the brief too and I think the USSC will rule against Trump. I'm guessing unanimously too.
 
Shades of 51 intelligence officials and Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Maybe someone can explain for you the difference between an open letter and a legal brief filed with the Supreme Court. I can't be bothered.

But about that letter. It reads in part: "“We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails … are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.”

Turns out they were on to something and were justified in sounding the alarm. Google "Alexander Smirnov."
 
Maybe someone can explain for you the difference between an open letter and a legal brief filed with the Supreme Court. I can't be bothered.

But about that letter. It reads in part: "“We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails … are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.”

Turns out they were on to something and were justified in sounding the alarm. Google "Alexander Smirnov."
What’s that got to do with an blatantly obvious attempt by these intelligence officials at damage control for Biden by commenting on something they had NO clue about and which they turned out to be dead ass wrong on?

Is there one or are you just deflecting?

I’m just saying that’s what this reminds me of.
 
What’s that got to do with an blatantly obvious attempt by these intelligence officials at damage control for Biden by commenting on something they had NO clue about and which they turned out to be dead ass wrong on?

Is there one or are you just deflecting?

I’m just saying that’s what this reminds me of.
Dude, I was talking about an amicus brief and you brought up an unrelated letter. Talk about deflection!

I don't care what it reminds you of. It's apples and oranges.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT