MSG ret. Tim Walz's involvement for pay with the CCP happened when he was in the National Guard. Does that make him eligible for UCMJ penalties?
https://x.com/thejimwatkins/status/1840933736608907352
Cody Melby 🇺🇸🇲🇨🏴☠️
@cm_19d
>Looks like RED OCTOBER is starting early.
kek
Oversight Committee
@GOPoversight
🚨BREAKING: Chairman Comer Is Subpoenaing DHS After Whistleblower Reveals Information on Governor Walz’s Ties to the CCP
According to recently received whistleblower disclosures, we’ve learned of a non-classified, Microsoft Teams group chat among DHS employees and additional intelligence reports that contain information regarding a longstanding connection between the CCP and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.
Specifically, through whistleblower disclosures, we’ve learned of a non-classified, Microsoft Teams group chat among DHS employees—titled “NST NFT Bi-Weekly Sync”—that contains information about Governor Walz that is relevant to our investigation. We’ve also learned that further relevant information regarding Governor Walz has been memorialized in both classified and unclassified documents in the control of DHS.
Today, Chairman Comer (@RepJamesComer
) issued a subpoena to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for intelligence reports, documents, and communications in its possession related to Governor Timothy Walz’s connections to the CCP.
https://x.com/GOPoversight/status/1840829014468149718
>How can a law be broken in a lawless land where there are two sets of laws?
>ChatGPT
A law can still be broken in a "lawless" land with two sets of laws, but the scenario requires further clarification. Here’s how this could play out:
Definition of "Lawless Land": A "lawless land" might imply a region where the rule of law has broken down or where authority is fragmented. However, even in such situations, informal or competing authorities can still exist, each enforcing its own set of rules. In such a place, one may consider it "lawless" if there is no universally recognized or enforceable system of law, but that doesn't mean there are no rules or expectations for behavior.
Two Sets of Laws: When there are two sets of laws, it generally means that there are conflicting legal systems or authorities, such as:
Competing governments, each claiming legitimacy.
Dual legal systems (e.g., religious and secular laws).
Overlapping jurisdictions (local vs. national law, or tribal vs. state law).
Breaking a Law: In this context, breaking a law would mean violating the rules set forth by one of these systems of authority. A person could:
Violate one legal system’s laws while adhering to the other.
Break the rules of both systems, thus facing consequences from either or both sets of authorities.
For example, if one system permits a certain action (e.g., carrying firearms) but another prohibits it, an individual following one system might be seen as law-abiding by one group but as a lawbreaker by the other.
Consequences of Lawbreaking: Even in a fractured or "lawless" environment, enforcement mechanisms can exist, whether through violence, imprisonment, fines, or social ostracism. Depending on who holds power, enforcement of one set of laws might be stronger or more recognized than the other.
To summarize: A law can be broken in a "lawless" land with two sets of laws if someone violates the rules established by one of the authorities, even if they are following the other set of rules. The challenge comes in determining which set of laws holds more practical or moral weight, and who has the power to enforce compliance.