>>20700291 Newsweek: Trump Immunity Claim Could 'Inject Chaos' Into Military: Retired Generals ==PN
Even Newsweek Admits thisarticle is unfair and left leaning.KEK
This Amicus Brief by Military smells and sounds like 51 Intelligent agencies letter of Hunter biden laptop Some quotes by the brief below. I don't know who wrote this but they contradict and assume a lot, especially what the Constitution means. Call to Dig on this Military leaders
And I can't understand how they jump to his absolute immunity that would force the military to enact crimes he wants done, like assassination. They sure talk about it a lot! Is this a warning? This Brief is a Bidan Order.
“Petitioner’s theory of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution is an assault on these foundational commitments. The notion of such immunity, both as a general matter, and alsospecifically in the context of the potential negation of election results, threatens to jeopardize our nation’s security and international leadership. Particularly in times like the present, when anti-democratic, authoritarian regimes are on the rise worldwide, such a threat is intolerable and dangerous. (They are already planning on stealing the 2024 election, it’s obvious)
Petitioner’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 thistheory, the President could, with impunity, direct his national security appointees to, in turn, direct members of the military to execute plainly unlawful orders.. Petitioner’s contention that the availability of criminal prosecution 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 assumedsince the Founding and has presented no challenge to Presidents discharging their duties roles that these elected and appointed civilian officials and career military leaders are called to play.
Second, the rule of law is critical to the military’s mission and to the people’s trust in the armed forces… 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 Petitioner argues for here, would fly in the face of that duty, creating the likelihood that service members will be placed in the impossible position..
Third, here, Petitioner’s position implicates the peaceful transition of power—a hallmark feature of American democracy—by permitting the President to take actions that would harm our national security and undermine our role as the international standard-bearer of democracy. Presidential transitions are times of significant national security risk. Leaders in the outgoing administration must prepare their successors to take the reins, and any complications in this handoff can diminish the successors’ preparedness to handle national security threats. Foreign countries also closely observe American elections—especially conflict related to the peaceful transition of power—only encourages our foreign adversaries. (surprised they didn't name Russia)
Relevantly here, three former military officers and officials have filed an amicus brief in claimed support of Petitioner, but they do not meaningfully defend his theory of absolute immunity—indeed, they expressly decline to endorse it. Instead, they admit that Presidents lack the authority to order the assassination of political rivals. However, they do not have an adequate answer to what happens when the President exceeds the bounds of his authority and issues unlawful orders he intends to be followed. The only solution they offer is the unfounded prediction that military officers and officials would defy presidential orders to commit crimes—at least with respect to assassinations of political rivals—and thus that immunity does not pose grave concerns. (Like the General that assassinated Hastings the journalist, like that?)
And the notion that predicted defiance of the Commander-in-Chief’s orders is the backstop against criminal behavior by a President is not what the Constitution provides for. It would inexorably lead to deep divisions between the armed forces’ political and military leaders and would place servicemen and women in theimpossible position of either ignoring presidential orders they are sworn to obey or committing crimes at the President’s behest in violation of their oath—for which they may be prosecuted. (WTF??? what would make them to comply?) (Brief attached)