Anonymous OP 1d

Can you elaborate?

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Well a grand jury just also declined to an indict a dad for shooting and killing his daughter while drunk, so it doesn’t seem like it works all the time

0

Anonymous #1 1d

Well no… because the president shouldn’t be ordering the justice department to try and murder his political opponents.

4

Anonymous #3 1d

They were accused of sedition. Which CAN be punishable by death, doesn’t mean it will. There was an investigation, and indictments were declined. That’s the justice system at work as intended. There is no debate

0

Anonymous #2 1d

you can convince a grand jury to indict basically anyone off of a lint ball and a balled up, soaked, half legible sticky note as evidence.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

oh 😭 I was wondering how tf the DOJ managed some of these indictments

1

Anonymous #2 1d

The entire point of a grand jury is taking a bunch of ordinary people who have no knowledge of law, and then trying to convince them to indict someone. It’s not hard to convince them. odds are the prosecutor knows more about law than they do.

6

Anonymous OP 1d

*than they do COMBINED

4

Anonymous #1 23h

“They were accused of sedition” by HIM. DONALD TRUMP is the accuser. They were not accused by a prosecutor. They were not accused by an arresting officer. They were accused of sedition BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES - and THEN the DOJ tried to indict them. Under penalty of death. If THAT is “the way the system is supposed to work” to you, I don’t know how to help.

5

Anonymous OP 23h

You obviously don’t understand how our justice system works. There was a preliminary investigation and a grand jury decided not to indict. Even if they did decide to, that would’ve just lead to an arrest before having an either a plea or a trial. No, the punishment was not decided preemptively, that’s not how it works. And yes, the executive branch is allowed to call for an investigation, that’s how it works. Once again, justice system working as designed

0

Anonymous #1 23h

#1, you are assuming a LOT of things happened in this process. They didn’t. Let’s break down the order of events. 1) 6 democrats post a video on social media calling for troops to refuse illegal orders. 2) Donald Trump crashes out on truth social, calling them all seditious traitors who committed a crime punishable by death. 3) Jeaninne Pirro opens the preliminary investigation.

1

Anonymous #1 23h

IN THAT ORDER. it’s not illegal to tell troops that. that is a perfectly legal statement - one literally enshrined in law. Soliders SHOULD refuse illegal orders. thusly - there was NO EVIDENCE OF SEDITION. … UNTIL Trump crashed out. Suddenly, Pirro’s opening an investigation.

1

Anonymous #1 23h

My source on the Order of Events is the BBC btw

1

Anonymous OP 23h

Yes. The accusation was against a video calling what Trump calls legal orders illegal followed by instructions not to follow them. That led to an accusation, then a preliminary investigation which ended with no indictment because grand jury determined no law was broken. You are echoing the same thing as me and, while you’re very angry about it, it’s still the judicial process as designed.

-1

Anonymous #1 23h

STOP THERE. STOP ON THE SECOND SENTENCE. YOU FOUND IT. YOU FOUND THE POINT OF DISSONANCE BETWEEN US. “What Trump calls legal orders” What. TRUMP. Calls. Legal. Orders. The president is NOT the decider of when an order is legal or not. The law is. And THE LAW - extremely explicitly - defines both WHAT an illegal order is AND that you have a legal duty to not follow them.

5

Anonymous #1 23h

You are essentially describing a president declaring “MY ORDER IS UNILATERALLY LEGAL AND YOUR CRITICISM OF SUCH IS SEDITIOUS AND PENALIZABLE BY DEATH” and going Yeah, I think that’s how that’s supposed to work. … you accused ME of not knowing anything about the justice system. Look inward.

1

Anonymous OP 23h

And this would all be fine if it went nowhere, right? “Boomer idiot screams that he’s right when he’s objectively not” isn’t news. But Pirro opened an investigation based on it. When there was NO REAL EVIDENCE OF SEDITION.

1

Anonymous OP 23h

The courts determine whether an order was illegal or unconstitutional. This isn’t one of those “I’m not touching you so you can’t fight back.” If someone calls your legal action illegal and then calls for people to defy it because it’s illegal, it raises the question. You don’t collect evidence until a preliminary investigation has happened. So they did, and no indictment was brought. Go advocate for the judicial process to change, by all means. But this is literally how it works

1

Anonymous #1 23h

please understand, #1, that the “question” it raises is ‘is it legal for the United States Military to be deployed against its own civilians?’ … THAT WAS THE ORDER, DUDE. I PROMISE YOU - THE LAW HAS ALREADY ANSWERED THAT. IN LIKE 6 DIFFERENT WAYS. CASE LAW, LEGISLATION, MILITARY LAW, THE LAW OF COMMON SENSE, THE LITERAL ACTUAL CONSTITUTION…

1

Anonymous #1 23h

Calling THAT an illegal order is the most “sky is blue” moment those democrats have ever had. It was OBVIOUS. There was NO evidence of sedition. No reason to open an investigation. And more importantly - no reason to try and indict

1

Anonymous OP 23h

No, actually. The president is allowed to instruct federal law enforcement to enforce the law and if a more specific instruction is illegal, the courts will strike it down. That’s how it works. Now you’re pretending like Mark Kelly even named a specific order to defy. He did not. He kept it ambiguous on purpose. That’s why we investigate and it led nowhere for a reason as well. The more you spell it out the more it shows there’s no corruption lol, it’s literally how it’s designed.

1

Anonymous #1 23h

… y’know, #1, this conversation would go a lot more productively if you knew what the Posse Comitatus act was. At all. Google it. Tell me what its PRIMARY function is.

5