Posted on Dec 28, 2015
Should the military intervene if it is proven a POTUS is funding the enemy?
21.5K
207
144
5
1
4
Politics
Leadership
Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 37
20
20
0
CPT Jack Durish
MAJ (Join to see) - It seems that Congress actually does expend some government funds. At least that's the concept that I learned while reading Charlie Wilson's War. To be honest, I was surprised, but not too much. Government is an intricate business and its practice is full of loopholes and interesting facts that We the People never learned in Civics Classes.
(0)
(0)
SCPO Joshua I
Maj Werner Hindrichs - We had those exact same problems, just switched to the other side of the aisle, for the entire 8 years G.W. Bush was President. In fact, the rhetoric was worse, and I recall some people actually trying to get on stage and "arrest" the VP once.
I don't recall any of the left wing who are screaming and crying about it now being upset in any way about it then.
I don't recall any of the left wing who are screaming and crying about it now being upset in any way about it then.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SCPO Joshua I I suppose the biggest difference between the Bush Administration and the current Administration is that the senior leaders of the Bush Administration have been charged, and, in some countries, convicted of committing war crimes. Bush and his cronies aren't traveling internationally much these days.
(0)
(0)
(2)
(0)
20
20
0
Military coups arent part of our system. Who would even make that decision? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? A Combatant Commander? Or just any general with a hair up his ass about the. Current foreign policy? And would those military members who dont believe in coups or the "guilt" of the POTUS then oppose the military segment attempting the coup so we have soldiers killing soldiers?
Bad and illegal idea all the way around.
Bad and illegal idea all the way around.
(20)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SPC Diego CDeBaca - I havent looked it up, but I suspect that since at that point the POTUS would have been convicted, that it would fall to law enforcement agencies to remove the president rather than the military. It's not like an impeachment conviction is simply a political bill that a POTUS can ignore or negotiate about after it is done. But I am not a JAG
(0)
(0)
No
As the folks to "prove it" are the same folks that can deal with making him leave before the end of the term.
You, I, Trump and others do not have the ability to "prove it" Congress if they had reason, could investigate and find cause, conduct impeachment process and remove him by lawful authority.
As the folks to "prove it" are the same folks that can deal with making him leave before the end of the term.
You, I, Trump and others do not have the ability to "prove it" Congress if they had reason, could investigate and find cause, conduct impeachment process and remove him by lawful authority.
(13)
(0)
SSgt Jim Gilmore
This POTUS has sidestepped his oath so often, you wonder why there has not been a coup. Facts are that the House could have impeached him any number of times and it would pass. The problem you face is getting 67 votes for conviction in the Senate. No Democrat is going to throw one of their own under the bus so why waste the time and money when it will be easier to get him after he leaves office in court.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google