Let me help the licensed regime journalists with some questions this remarkable outburst gives rise to…
“Mr. President, if you plan to use force against American citizens, can you tell us how many BCTs the American military has currently deployable within the United States?”
“Also, do you know what a BCT is? Do you know how many troops are in a brigade combat team? Do you understand the logistical needs of a BCT and its vulnerabilities in an insurgency environment?”
How many BCTs do you think you would need to secure an urban area the size of Los Angeles. Didn’t it take three divisions, about 12 brigades, to secure it during the Riots? How long could you logistically support that?”
“You mentioned F15s. How many bombers of all types does the United States have deployable within the continental US? How many are operational? How many sorties could the military fly a day against American citizens?”
“Have your generals, when they aren’t busy excusing CERT on Capitol Hill and not winning wars, staffed exactly how many American military personnel they could count on to attack American citizens if you ordered it? What percentage do you believe would comply and why?”
“Can you explain how you would employ bombers to hold territory, like a city? What means would you use to identify targets to bomb within the United States? What would the rules of engagement be when using bombers against American citizens?”
“How would you protect the supply lines to the fighter bases from attacks by armed citizens? How many of your limited ground forces would you allocate to securing supply lines between bases and protecting complicit forces living off post from retaliation?”
“Have you considered that the military forces of the National Guard in red states, which include aircraft, artillery and infantry, may refuse or even oppose your campaign against American citizens? Would you attack those forces?”
“When staffing the campaign you speak of against American citizens, what was your analysis of the number of armed American citizens the 2,000,000 pre-desertion military would have to oppose?”
“You expressed a willingness to use bombers and potential even nuclear weapons against your own people. How many American citizens would you kill to retain your hold on power?”
“Mr. President, I have more questions, but your aide mentioned Matlock is on and that you need to be going.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I imagine our woke military leadership thought they would benefit from the prior default support American normals had for “the military” when jumping into politics against @TuckerCarlson.
Except they failed to note how normals had been burned by other institutions previously. 1/
This is not 30, 20, 10 or even five years ago. Over the last two decades, normal Americans have found themselves attacked by every institution they had expected to protect them - academia, the media, the NFL... 2/
Even law enforcement betrayed them, in the form of kneeling cops & the FBI/DOJ cabal that tried to take down the man they elected President.
So normals were not naive and vulnerable - they were prepared to be betrayed when the woke .mil leadership abandoned its principles. 3/
OK, I really like small businesses. A lot. And there’s one I’ve been giving a lot of business to to take care of some functions and they didn’t catch something that cost me a few bucks more than it should’ve. @irinamoises pointed out that that might be an issue in... 1/
the future and she asked if they could remind us when doing future transactions about it so we wouldn’t have to pay more. The guy got snotty about it and it’s like dude, I don’t have to come to you. The moral is if you were a small businessman and you pride yourself... 2/
On personal service to differentiate yourself from the big companies, maybe you should not be a dick to good customers. I understand, perhaps it’s an innovative new strategy I’ve never heard of...3/
Interesting. I think it's at least potentially morally wrong. It might be a political question since one side might see it a silencing a witness while the other stopping a witch hunt. I think part of the pardon power is to end political vendettas... 1/4
For example, Russiagate is manifestly baloney. I think Trump is not only empowered to but should pardon everyone sucked into it. Is that "buying off witnesses?" Some will say so. But I think he has the power to. The remedy if it is wrong? Don't vote for him in 2024. 2/4
Related is the huge problem of proving intent. Should each pardon be litigated so that after the fact a hostile DOJ can decide the president's motivation was unsatisfactory? A bribe is easy - money changing hands is objective. Intent is not, and... 3/4
First, there was my action-packed, liberal-tormenting Amazon bestselling conservative thriller about America split into red and blue nation and smartass, Wilson Combat .45-packing hero Kelly Turnbull breaking a lot of stuff...
Then I annoyed the libs even harder with the next novel, a story of oppressive liberal fascism and patriotic resistance by armed citizens...Bill Kristol called it “Appalling”...
So @dandrezner do I really have to explain to you what evidence is?
Evidence is anything that proves or tends to prove a matter at issue. Whether it is reliable is a completely different question that does not reflect on the fact that it is evidence.
If your contention is the evidence is not reliable, then you should say that.
But there is evidence that the emails are genuine. Whether you believe it or not is a material to the point you made.
2/
To pretend that there is no evidence is simply to mislead gullible people who blindly follow your tweets.
From the facts I know, a foundation could be laid so that the laptop could almost certainly be admitted in trial against Hunter Biden under the rules of evidence.
3/
The dismissal is not just a moral victory (exoneration) but a practical one - without a dismissal, Flynn can't sue anyone (USG, Cov + Burl) because his case did not favorably terminate. A pardon would not be a favorable termination. @shipwreckedcrew@McAdooGordon
JS can dismiss w/o prejudice. Seem like that's the "clever" play. What then?
If Trump wins, the DoJ appeals (or is it a writ? Probably not.) and it is eventually ordered dismissed with prejudice by SCOTUS, and JS is humiliated.
2/
If Biden wins, the calculus changes. Flynn has a dismissal in hand (w/ or w/o prejudice does not matter as to favorable termination) so Trump could pardon him for the BS crime (and FARA, and his son too) even though they are not charged (E.g., Carter pardoned draft dodgers). 3/