The fpotus is just deflecting talk about his cabinet picks, so he does his crazy dance verbal crap to put attention on nonsense. Expect daily doses of this. Also, he is certifiably bat shit nuts, so there's that.
A extremely well written article and with great detail here! All the 47-Git's imperialist ventures explained! Much appreciated. Trump from his insane take on Canada, Panama and Greeland is giving many Americans immediate cases of the ' Heebe-jeebies' over this expansion garbage talk.
As deflection goes trump overreached his stupid self !!!
To add to the Canadian absorption and representation dilemmas. If every province demanded statehood as a condition of amalgamation then that's at least 14 senators (assuming the small maritime provinces combining as one and excluding the territories.) Goodbye Republican party.
Perfect timing Robert. A group of reddit I'm apart of was just talking about this and most of us if not all agree with you that Trump's just bullcraping to bring attention to himself and away from his terrible cabinet picks.
I'll make sure to share this with the group as a confirmation. Thank you.
Yeah one of the things the group and I have said os that Trump is gonna say a lot of crap these next four years or however long he lasts. But in Trump fashion, he'll say one thing and either do nothing or do another thing.
And I've said and the group also that we can't take him at his word for everything he says. We need to look at actions, not his words.
No, it's about the military respecting the UN Charter and the War Powers act of Congress and Article 1 of the NATO treaty etc and refusing to obey an illegal order as they are trained to do from a cadet onwards.
Believing the dovey, "he is not going to start wars" rhetoric is pretty credulous. Why would you believe that Trump means what he (sometimes) says?
Rhetoric aside, the idea that he would be constrained by Congress *more so* than the preceding handful of presidents have been? They all sent American military into action without Congressional approval. You really think Trump is going to be more reserved than any of his predecessors since the late Carter?
I cover that briefly with the short discussion of Panama. It was gray area. The difference is that if Trump attacked Greenland, say, there is not the slightest gray area rationale Not unless Greenland attacked the US first which ain't going to happen. Same also for Panama and Canada - though Trump himself said he wouldn't attack Canada.
I am curious, did George HW Bush get authorization from Congress when he invaded Panama in 1989? What about Reagan with Grenada? In my mind, those types of scenarios seem the most comparable to what Trump has mused about…
No he didn't. I wondered about whether to go into that here. What George HW Bush did was grey area though many would say it went against the War Powers act. Amongst other things in the rationale, a US marine had been killed and Panama had declared war with the US.
The main objection is that there was plenty of time to consult with the Congress unless the intent was surprise to kill or capture Noriega but if that was the objective it's not clear it's one that could be a basis for the War Powers exception case.
I read a bit about this before writing my debunk and wondered whether to do a section about it and then thought it would confuse people to go into that detail, that's all. Just touched on it. But probably I should cover it briefly.
So, for Trump to attack Greenland or Panama or Canada has no even gray area justification and is very illegal. Unless Greenland (or Panama) attacked the US as I said but there is no way that happens. As for Canada, Trump himself said he wouldn't do it.
Just these threats go against the US Code and warrant arrest and possibly further action. He was not president when he made these threats, so immunity shouldn’t hold. The US Code isn’t worth anything, I guess.
He says himself that he isn't a legal expert. US presidents have often started military actions against other countries. By the war powers act a president can attack another country but only if the country has threatened the US first. Bush's action against Panama was gray area.
He can't attack Greenland for the reasons I gave in the article - that Greenland is not attacking the US never mind that it is part of NATO. But this speech can't be illegal as he was talking about future plans as president. And it wasn't challenged legally and there are may who would challenge it if it was illegal.
I hope you're right, and truly wish US military history supported your optimism. But Johnson showed that you can start a major war on the basis of an event that didn't happen; Nixon and Kissinger provided a pretty good playbook for how you can invade and seriously trash a country while completely ignoring Congress; and then there's Cuba, the Philippines etc etc. Plus Trump may not be able to 'order' generals to attack a country, but history suggests there are always a lot of generals who are looking for a conflict they can make their names in and don't need orders...
So, the whole point of the Supreme Court giving Trump immunity was to insure that the judges wouldn't look like chumps if Trump said, "yeah I don't like that law and you can't make me follow it." Trump is absolutely correct that the Supreme Court can't in fact enforce their own laws or any law. So you think anyone in the MAGA universe is going to enforce the law where Trump is concerned? Naive anyone. Isn't this, in fact, why Trump is so dangerous?
The Supreme Court doesn't enforce laws. But lower courts do. If Trump was to order soldiers to invade Greenland, say, then the generals would rightly refuse to follow the order under the War Powers act, and Article 1 of the NATO treaty and many other legal reasons. If Trump insisted then the general would get his lawyers to talk to Trump's lawyers. There is no way that Trump could force a general to obey an illegal order.
It's not MAGA people who enforce the laws. It's not the Supreme court true. It's judges in the lower courts. They listen to evidence, can call a jury trial if needed and can sentence etc.
Some people think the Attorney General decides legal cases and sentences offenders. But no he doesn't, the Attorney General is just the prosecutor to put forward the government's case in court cases. He or she has no more power than any other prosecutor.
The DoJ does help enforce laws because typically it prosecutes cases for the American citizen - but so also can any American and any city, company, state etc, if they have a case they can bring it before a judge to decide.
So for instance in this scenario where a general refuses to follow an order to invade Greenland - if Trump insisted it might end up as a court case between Trump and the general.
In that case, the Attorney General would represent Trump and another attorney would represent the general. The case is NOT decided by the Attorney general but by an independent judge.
The Supreme Court immunity decision did NOT give Trump permission to break laws. The only thing the Supreme Court justices agreed that he is immune for is his pardon power. They also specifically said that immunity does not extend to pardons done in exchange for bribes. For instance if some billionaire offered trump a billion dollars to pardon him from a prison sentence and Trump accepted the offer, that would be a clear example of an illegal pardon that Trump could be prosecuted for. He'd surely be impeached but even if not he could be prosecuted for it and would surely be found guilty.
With the immunity decision, he didn't get what he wanted on Jan 06 either. The pre-trial investigation would certainly have found that he could be prosecuted if he hadn't won the election.
BLOG: Supreme Court justices all agree a president is NOT immune for crimes committed as president
— Sotomeyer did NOT really say a president can assassinate rivals
Trump has the worst record of any president in the Supreme Court at least since 1937 losing more than half his cases, and he also has a poor record in the lower courts.
BLOG: The US Supreme Court is NOT far right or fascist
— its record on LGBT is unknown but likely 5 : 4 LGBT favouring
— Trump has the worst record of any president since 1937 with the Supreme Court
Trump cheated on his first wife with the woman who became his second wife. He cheated on his second wife with the woman who became his third wife. He cheated on his 3rd wife.
He married 3 women, promising to love and cherish them.
If he can't keep those promises, why would ANYONE BELIEVE HE'D KEEP PROMISES TO NOT ATTACK OTHER COUNTRIES ?!?!?
This is not about Trump. It is about the generals and soldiers he would order to attack these countries. Plus it is obvious that Trump is not serious about this. Just deflection and intimidation.
I appreciate your efforts, but some of your statements/assertions sound a bit like downplaying the harm Trump does when he runs off his mouth and threatens our allies. It doesn’t placate me at all despite your sincere-sounding intention of trying to help people to refrain from panicking.
This is not political. Never is. I helped people scared of Biden as well as people scared of Trump. I do do this just to help scared people. I am not downplaying anything. I just say things as they are using the most reliable sources available. Not trying to placate anyone just to help anyone scared. If you are scared it may help. If not scared then it may be hard to understand what the motivation is but that's why I do it.
I appreciate your response. I guess what I was partly saying is that I actually WANT to be placated, but I’m still upset and worried about Trump being in the WH again. 😕
Okay. I plan another blog post when I get time about his first 100 days. Will try to do it before inauguration day - about what to expect and what he can't do in his first 100 days. Most of the things that scare people are impossible. The things he will do like withdrawing from the Paris agreement have much less effect than most people think.
The fpotus is just deflecting talk about his cabinet picks, so he does his crazy dance verbal crap to put attention on nonsense. Expect daily doses of this. Also, he is certifiably bat shit nuts, so there's that.
A extremely well written article and with great detail here! All the 47-Git's imperialist ventures explained! Much appreciated. Trump from his insane take on Canada, Panama and Greeland is giving many Americans immediate cases of the ' Heebe-jeebies' over this expansion garbage talk.
As deflection goes trump overreached his stupid self !!!
Glad to help :)
To add to the Canadian absorption and representation dilemmas. If every province demanded statehood as a condition of amalgamation then that's at least 14 senators (assuming the small maritime provinces combining as one and excluding the territories.) Goodbye Republican party.
Thanks for a great review of the realities.
Thanks glad to help :). Yes Puerto Rica is the one that is perhaps most likely some day to want to become a separate state.
Really appreciate this, Robert. Thanks for calming me and everyone down.
Glad to help thanks :)
Perfect timing Robert. A group of reddit I'm apart of was just talking about this and most of us if not all agree with you that Trump's just bullcraping to bring attention to himself and away from his terrible cabinet picks.
I'll make sure to share this with the group as a confirmation. Thank you.
Great glad to help :). We are having to debunk it frequently in our Facebook group right now which is why I did my debunk.
Yeah one of the things the group and I have said os that Trump is gonna say a lot of crap these next four years or however long he lasts. But in Trump fashion, he'll say one thing and either do nothing or do another thing.
And I've said and the group also that we can't take him at his word for everything he says. We need to look at actions, not his words.
Exactly :)
What's the reddit group's name?
Vote dems
As usual you assume a respect for the letter of law from Republicans that is just not in evidence.
No, it's about the military respecting the UN Charter and the War Powers act of Congress and Article 1 of the NATO treaty etc and refusing to obey an illegal order as they are trained to do from a cadet onwards.
Presidents order military actions without approval from Congress all the time.
Believing the dovey, "he is not going to start wars" rhetoric is pretty credulous. Why would you believe that Trump means what he (sometimes) says?
Rhetoric aside, the idea that he would be constrained by Congress *more so* than the preceding handful of presidents have been? They all sent American military into action without Congressional approval. You really think Trump is going to be more reserved than any of his predecessors since the late Carter?
I cover that briefly with the short discussion of Panama. It was gray area. The difference is that if Trump attacked Greenland, say, there is not the slightest gray area rationale Not unless Greenland attacked the US first which ain't going to happen. Same also for Panama and Canada - though Trump himself said he wouldn't attack Canada.
I am curious, did George HW Bush get authorization from Congress when he invaded Panama in 1989? What about Reagan with Grenada? In my mind, those types of scenarios seem the most comparable to what Trump has mused about…
No he didn't. I wondered about whether to go into that here. What George HW Bush did was grey area though many would say it went against the War Powers act. Amongst other things in the rationale, a US marine had been killed and Panama had declared war with the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama#U.S._rationale
The main objection is that there was plenty of time to consult with the Congress unless the intent was surprise to kill or capture Noriega but if that was the objective it's not clear it's one that could be a basis for the War Powers exception case.
I read a bit about this before writing my debunk and wondered whether to do a section about it and then thought it would confuse people to go into that detail, that's all. Just touched on it. But probably I should cover it briefly.
So, for Trump to attack Greenland or Panama or Canada has no even gray area justification and is very illegal. Unless Greenland (or Panama) attacked the US as I said but there is no way that happens. As for Canada, Trump himself said he wouldn't do it.
Because no one respects him! 🤪
https://open.substack.com/pub/thefuckingnews/p/what-the-media-didnt-tell-us-about?r=3og5r3&utm_medium=ios
Just these threats go against the US Code and warrant arrest and possibly further action. He was not president when he made these threats, so immunity shouldn’t hold. The US Code isn’t worth anything, I guess.
He says himself that he isn't a legal expert. US presidents have often started military actions against other countries. By the war powers act a president can attack another country but only if the country has threatened the US first. Bush's action against Panama was gray area.
He can't attack Greenland for the reasons I gave in the article - that Greenland is not attacking the US never mind that it is part of NATO. But this speech can't be illegal as he was talking about future plans as president. And it wasn't challenged legally and there are may who would challenge it if it was illegal.
I hope you're right, and truly wish US military history supported your optimism. But Johnson showed that you can start a major war on the basis of an event that didn't happen; Nixon and Kissinger provided a pretty good playbook for how you can invade and seriously trash a country while completely ignoring Congress; and then there's Cuba, the Philippines etc etc. Plus Trump may not be able to 'order' generals to attack a country, but history suggests there are always a lot of generals who are looking for a conflict they can make their names in and don't need orders...
So, the whole point of the Supreme Court giving Trump immunity was to insure that the judges wouldn't look like chumps if Trump said, "yeah I don't like that law and you can't make me follow it." Trump is absolutely correct that the Supreme Court can't in fact enforce their own laws or any law. So you think anyone in the MAGA universe is going to enforce the law where Trump is concerned? Naive anyone. Isn't this, in fact, why Trump is so dangerous?
Y
The Supreme Court doesn't enforce laws. But lower courts do. If Trump was to order soldiers to invade Greenland, say, then the generals would rightly refuse to follow the order under the War Powers act, and Article 1 of the NATO treaty and many other legal reasons. If Trump insisted then the general would get his lawyers to talk to Trump's lawyers. There is no way that Trump could force a general to obey an illegal order.
It's not MAGA people who enforce the laws. It's not the Supreme court true. It's judges in the lower courts. They listen to evidence, can call a jury trial if needed and can sentence etc.
Some people think the Attorney General decides legal cases and sentences offenders. But no he doesn't, the Attorney General is just the prosecutor to put forward the government's case in court cases. He or she has no more power than any other prosecutor.
The DoJ does help enforce laws because typically it prosecutes cases for the American citizen - but so also can any American and any city, company, state etc, if they have a case they can bring it before a judge to decide.
So for instance in this scenario where a general refuses to follow an order to invade Greenland - if Trump insisted it might end up as a court case between Trump and the general.
In that case, the Attorney General would represent Trump and another attorney would represent the general. The case is NOT decided by the Attorney general but by an independent judge.
The Supreme Court immunity decision did NOT give Trump permission to break laws. The only thing the Supreme Court justices agreed that he is immune for is his pardon power. They also specifically said that immunity does not extend to pardons done in exchange for bribes. For instance if some billionaire offered trump a billion dollars to pardon him from a prison sentence and Trump accepted the offer, that would be a clear example of an illegal pardon that Trump could be prosecuted for. He'd surely be impeached but even if not he could be prosecuted for it and would surely be found guilty.
With the immunity decision, he didn't get what he wanted on Jan 06 either. The pre-trial investigation would certainly have found that he could be prosecuted if he hadn't won the election.
BLOG: Supreme Court justices all agree a president is NOT immune for crimes committed as president
— Sotomeyer did NOT really say a president can assassinate rivals
— details for lower courts to unfold soon
READ HERE: https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/supreme-court-justices-all-agree
Trump has the worst record of any president in the Supreme Court at least since 1937 losing more than half his cases, and he also has a poor record in the lower courts.
BLOG: The US Supreme Court is NOT far right or fascist
— its record on LGBT is unknown but likely 5 : 4 LGBT favouring
— Trump has the worst record of any president since 1937 with the Supreme Court
— impossible to overturn respect for marriage
READ HERE: https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/The-US-Supreme-Court-is-NOT-far-right-or-fascist-its-record-on-LGBT-is-unknown-but-likely-5-4-LGBT-favouring-Trump
So hope this helps. It's a common confusion and the click bait media make it even more confusing.
Trump cheated on his first wife with the woman who became his second wife. He cheated on his second wife with the woman who became his third wife. He cheated on his 3rd wife.
He married 3 women, promising to love and cherish them.
If he can't keep those promises, why would ANYONE BELIEVE HE'D KEEP PROMISES TO NOT ATTACK OTHER COUNTRIES ?!?!?
This is not about Trump. It is about the generals and soldiers he would order to attack these countries. Plus it is obvious that Trump is not serious about this. Just deflection and intimidation.
I appreciate your efforts, but some of your statements/assertions sound a bit like downplaying the harm Trump does when he runs off his mouth and threatens our allies. It doesn’t placate me at all despite your sincere-sounding intention of trying to help people to refrain from panicking.
This is not political. Never is. I helped people scared of Biden as well as people scared of Trump. I do do this just to help scared people. I am not downplaying anything. I just say things as they are using the most reliable sources available. Not trying to placate anyone just to help anyone scared. If you are scared it may help. If not scared then it may be hard to understand what the motivation is but that's why I do it.
I appreciate your response. I guess what I was partly saying is that I actually WANT to be placated, but I’m still upset and worried about Trump being in the WH again. 😕
Okay. I plan another blog post when I get time about his first 100 days. Will try to do it before inauguration day - about what to expect and what he can't do in his first 100 days. Most of the things that scare people are impossible. The things he will do like withdrawing from the Paris agreement have much less effect than most people think.