A post that Mr. Trump circulated on Sunday called for Liz Cheney to be prosecuted by a military court reserved for enemy combatants and war criminals.
A post that Mr. Trump circulated on Sunday called for Liz Cheney to be prosecuted by a military court reserved for enemy combatants and war criminals.
Included in the list of people to be brought up for war crimes against the United States were Current President Joe Biden, Current VP Kamala Harris, former VP Mike Pence, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Illinois Congressman Adam Kinzinger and Representatives Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin, Pete Aguilar, Zoe Lofgren and Bennie Thompson.
It was never ridiculous, people just weren't able or willing to look into the future far enough. If someone said this would happen back in 2016 you'd be ridiculed.
The more I think about trump saying that he could shoot someone in broad daylight in front of millions, and not lose a single supporter…..
the more I think he was right.
Military tribunals? Sounds like some of his article 2 powers with absolute immunity now, their use cannot be questioned. Go to town Trump, say the conservatives on the supreme court.
Doubtful that the military would actually do that.
Trump while President was reportedly annoyed at basically being told 'no' that General Kelly said that:
The President’s loud complaint to [then-White House chief of staff] John Kelly one day was typical: “You [f------] generals, why can’t you be like the German generals?”
“Which generals?” Kelly asked.
“The German generals in World War II,” Trump responded.
“You do know that they tried to kill Hitler three times and almost pulled it off?” Kelly said.
But, of course, Trump did not know that. “No, no, no, they were totally loyal to him,” the President replied.
The President may be Commander-in-Chief but the oath is to the Constitution. Obeying the President and officers are also a part of the oath but with the caveat that it is according to the regulations and UCMJ. You not only don't have to but you're taught to explicitly not follow an illegal order in the US military.
Not that US military members have given illegal orders that were followed but it is a little different to basically order the military to essentially start enforcing essentially a government coup for a politician against the US' own citizens.
I mean, I agree with you that most military leaders and soldiers would not do this.
But your own example kind of shows the likely strategy:
What did Hitler do? What did Stalin do?
Fire or banish or kill enough leaders until you get ones that will listen to you, and re orient your troop pools so that you have a decent number of whole units that are ideologically aligned and thus likely to comply.
Trump's entire modus operandi, now crystalized in extreme detail with Project 2025, has been figure out a way to replace everyone who is not an ideologically aligned stooge willing to literally break existing laws to carry out the whims of the God Emperor, at literally every level of government.
I obviously cannot know that this would be successful or in what timeframe.
I can only look to history for many examples of similar things occuring, and see more and more checked boxes making this more likely.
I'm sure the militaries of many other coup'd countries are told not to follow illegal orders, and I'm also sure that many in our modern military and time would resist, perhaps even violently as Stauffenberg did.
Would be a reaaaal shame if someone interpreted this as a threat to the rule of law that necessitated some kind of presidential act. There's gotta be plenty of realistic ways to fuck with him in an official capacity.
This country went from undecided on the death penalty to openly embracing presidential hit squads seemingly over night. The right is saying who is on their list while the left is saying they should make one. Good times ahead.
Liz Cheney is not an enemy combatant. If this is Trump's definition of one, that as an authoritarian any dissent to his will is considered treason, then he'll still need to change the rules of military tribunals to allow prosecution of non-combatant civilians. In case anyone hasn't read it, Wikipedia has a page on Military tribunals in the United States - Wikipedia
It's curious Trump seems to believe that mere political dissent equates to enemy combat and physical violence. Imagine what he must think about Jan 6 that he has been keeping to himself. Can anyone say "project"?
He's saying he must be given a military tribunal as an enemy combatant?
Mr. Trump, using his account on Truth Social on Sunday, promoted two posts from other users of the site that called for the jailing of his perceived political enemies.
One post that he circulated on Sunday singled out Liz Cheney, the former Wyoming congresswoman who is a Republican critic of Mr. Trump’s, and called for her to be prosecuted by a type of military court reserved for enemy combatants and war criminals.
A separate post included photos of 15 former and current elected officials that said, in all-capital letters, “they should be going to jail on Monday not Steve Bannon!” Those officials included Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris, Mr. Pence, Mr. Schumer and Mr. McConnell — the top leaders in the Senate — and Representative Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker.
The list in the second post also had members of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, including Ms. Cheney and the former Illinois congressman Adam Kinzinger, another Republican, and the Democratic Representatives Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin, Pete Aguilar, Zoe Lofgren and Bennie Thompson, who chaired the committee.
The Biden campaign denounced the posts in a statement, saying that Mr. Trump “is doubling down on threats to our democracy,” adding that “the Supreme Court has now paved the way for him to do exactly what he is saying he will if he wins.”
Ms. Cheney responded with her own social media post on Sunday evening, saying “Donald — This is the type of thing that demonstrates yet again that you are not a stable adult — and are not fit for office.”
The original article contains 504 words, the summary contains 268 words. Saved 47%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!