Trump calls for executions of some Congress members.

[wizer]

He seems to be a bit on edge lately. First calling a reporter "Piggy", and now this?

I know he didn't mean it literally but still, even for him it's a bit much to suggest that certain members of Congress should be executed by hanging. And there are some extremists who tend to follow his instruction, and many of them own weapons.

Donald Trump called for the arrest and hanging of several Democratic members of Congress — all veterans — after they called for military personnel to refuse unlawful orders.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-calls-for-execution-of-democratic-members-of-congress-in-shocking-barrage-of-posts/ar-AA1QPey5

[Garraty_47]

Of course he's on edge.
He had to buy the rope (sign the bill) that may well be used to hang him.

That kinda thing can put anyone out of sorts.

[wizer]

Of course he's on edge.
He had to buy the rope (sign the bill) that may well be used to hang him.

That kinda thing can put anyone out of sorts.

It's going to be interesting when they reveal the contents of those emails.

Sounds like a potential game changer.

[Brent]

He seems to be a bit on edge lately. First calling a reporter "Piggy", and now this?

I know he didn't mean it literally but still, even for him it's a bit much to suggest that certain members of Congress should be executed by hanging. And there are some extremists who tend to follow his instruction, and many of them own weapons.

Donald Trump called for the arrest and hanging of several Democratic members of Congress — all veterans — after they called for military personnel to refuse unlawful orders.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-calls-for-execution-of-democratic-members-of-congress-in-shocking-barrage-of-posts/ar-AA1QPey5

Trump being Trump. He is a breath of fresh air. I wish we could trade conflict of interest Carney for him.

[Garraty_47]

It's going to be interesting when they reveal the contents of those emails.

IF they do. Of course not doing it will come with a whole different set of problems but if they calculate it'll be less damaging to keep playing hide-the-files that's what they'll gamble on.

Personally I'll believe it when I see it.

Sounds like a potential game changer.

Lots of things do, until they're not.
Never underestimate the willingness of USA citizens to be distracted and/or propagandized and/or gaslighted.

Our capacity for unopposed fuckery is seemingly bottomless.

[Biggie Smiles]

I think there is a big difference between announcing what the punishment is for treason and actually calling for the deaths of congress people

what those congress members did was indeed treason. Telling or even implying that the US military should disobey lawful orders issued by the commander n chief falls well within the guardrails of aiding and abedding an enemy.

Notice how A.I has been carefully prompted by the puppet masters to answer a direct an unambiguous question.

I asked AI the following

is telling the military to disobey lawful orders treason



And AI's response? A very carefully worded response designed to mislead much less capable minds than my own.

It responded with

No, telling military members to disobey
unlawful orders is not treason; it is a reflection of the military's legal obligation to obey the Constitution over illegal commands. However, disobeying lawful orders is insubordination, which is a crime. Treason is specifically defined by the Constitution as levying war against the U.S. or giving aid and comfort to its enemies.
Disobeying unlawful orders

    Service members are required to obey lawful orders but must disobey unlawful ones that violate the U.S. Constitution, international law, or the Geneva Conventions.
    Telling service members they can refuse illegal orders is considered upholding the oath they took to the Constitution, not encouraging insurrection.
    In recent events, this distinction has been a point of political contention, with one side stating it is a constitutional right and the other labeling it "seditious behavior" or "punishable by death".

Disobeying lawful orders

    Willful disobedience of a superior officer's lawful order is called insubordination, a crime in the military.
    Disobeying a lawful order can lead to consequences like demotion or jail time.

Treason

    Treason has a very specific legal definition: levying war against the United States or giving "aid and comfort" to its enemies.
    Encouraging military members to disobey illegal orders does not meet this definition.


Notice how AI responded asymmetrically to my question? My question was direct and unambiguous yet AI took it upon itself to answer my question with a No along the context that disobeying an "unlawful" order was not treason. I never asked about an unlawful order - I asked about a lawful order

and that right there tells you all you need to know about how this narrative is being falsified to illicit a specific reaction

[wizer]

is telling the military to disobey lawful orders treason



And AI's response? A very carefully worded response designed to mislead much less capable minds than my own.

It responded with

No, telling military members to disobey
unlawful orders is not treason

I plugged your question into Copilot (Microsoft's version of AI) and it didn't attempt to twist things around and answer an unasked question.

Direct Answer: No, telling the military to disobey lawful orders is not legally considered treason under U.S. law. It could, however, be treated as sedition or incitement depending on the circumstances, but treason has a very narrow constitutional definition.

[Biggie Smiles]

I plugged your question into Copilot (Microsoft's version of AI) and it didn't attempt to twist things around and answer an unasked question.

Direct Answer: No, telling the military to disobey lawful orders is not legally considered treason under U.S. law. It could, however, be treated as sedition or incitement depending on the circumstances, but treason has a very narrow constitutional definition.

That's only because proper context is not in the question I believe

If the disobeying of a lawful order results in the direct aid and/or comfort to an enemy then it is indeed treason

Now we all know what those Congress members were referring and we also know they were being intentionally vague because they are total cowards

But the timing and spirit of their words clearly demonstrates they want the military to second guess obeying orders which are in anyway connected to the deportation of criminals. Many of whom have been declared enemies of the state

[wizer]

That's only because proper context is not in the question I believe

I copied your question into Copilot without making any changes. There was more to the answer that CoPilot provided I just copied the first paragraph.

[Biggie Smiles]

I copied your question into Copilot without making any changes. There was more to the answer that CoPilot provided I just copied the first paragraph.

yeah. It's difficult to provide all of the context for this matter into a search field

[wizer]

Anyway maybe we're getting a bit off topic with the whole treason definition thing.

It seems Trump isn't quite himself and if that's the case, what's driving it.