It's correct, but it doesn't support the point they're trying to make. The National Guard cannot be used for domestic law enforcement when under command of the US federal government. They can only do that when directed to do so by their state's governor.
So Trump wanting to deploy the National Guard to stop his imagined election day interference, or to deal with rioters, would fall under the same rules as if he were to try to deploy the US Army for those tasks.
> It's correct, but it doesn't support the point they're trying to make. The National Guard cannot be used for domestic law enforcement when under command of the US federal government. They can only do that when directed to do so by their state's governor.
But Trump provided zero details about how he might use the military. Zero.
He didn't say "i don't care about Posse Comitatus Act" or "I will personally deploy them as the Commander in Chief".
This is like someone saying "If I find out you stole my bike, I will come to your house and take it back" and people saying "oh my god, doesn't he know murder is illegal? you can't go into someone's house and kill them just because they stole from you!"
Assuming Trump will break the law when he nothing in his comments suggested he would AND he has legal channels with which to do it (send a formal request to a govenor), is not a reasonable nor logical thought process.
I don't recall the same hysteria when Obama said he was going to deploy troops to the Mexico border for law enforcement because of cartel violence.
He even said he will "continue to do what's necessary to secure our shared border." Whatever is necessary?!? Doesn't he know it's illegal for the President to deploy US troops inside the US?
Amazing how the media gives him a pass and is happy to explain how he'll do it all legally, but Trump makes a comment and the media (and HN) assume he's breaking law before he's even done anything.
That's why norms exist. Most previous presidents never would have had this problem in the first place because they would never suggest using US troops on citizens in the first place. If they needed to do something that even approached violating a norm, then they would go out of their way to affirm that they still supported the norm and to explain their actions. Obama was given more benefit of the doubt partially because he mostly followed norms.
By going out of his way to flout norms, Trump has brought this sort of mistrust and criticism on himself. Therefore, it's not really reasonable for his supporters to complain about it, it's exactly what they signed up for. Remember that Republicans style themselves as the party of personal responsibility.
The question: "Wait, who is threatening to use the US military against US citizens?"
The answer: Numerous examples of Trump threatening to use the US military against US citizens
The retort: He didn't explain exactly how he would do it, so it's not a threat.
> This is like someone saying "If I find out you stole my bike, I will come to your house and take it back" and people saying "oh my god, doesn't he know murder is illegal? you can't go into someone's house and kill them just because they stole from you!"
No, it's like someone saying I'm going to steal your bike, then you tell other people they said they're going to steal your bike, then someone else defends them arguing they didn't say how they were going to steal your bike so stop saying they said they're going to steal your bike.
Example? I was drunk for the entire administration. I don’t doubt he said some stupid shit, but I doubt he then doubled down and escalated consistently afterwards, with unquestioning support from his constituents.
> Trump makes a comment and the media (and HN) assume he's breaking law before he's even done anything.
Because he keeps breaking the law. Repeatedly. The better part of term in office this year has been spent violating the constitution, and lets not forget he's a convicted felon despite all the effort put towards making him immune from the law.
Hanlon's razor is reserved for people who don't demonstrate malice on a daily basis. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, they deserve the scourge of the certainty. I'm sure you can go back through your comments, find several instance where you've said something similar, and it later turned out the concerns were completely justified.
Edit: Didn't even have to go back a month:
"The Project 2025 that he disavowed? Do you want trying arguing with facts rather than some evil figment of your imagination?"
Of course, it was already ridiculous making that argument a month ago, and I'm sure you'll still say that's a figment of everyone's imaginations.
I think this is what people call the Mandela Effect. Below is an actual video in a presidential debate of Trump saying he had nothing to do with Project 2025, and yet you claim he never said that:
I did not claim he never said it. I’m claiming that it was an obvious lie. If words are the only thing that matters when judging a persons intentions, then that must apply to every person equally or else you’re objectively biased. But you already know that.
I don't see the comparison you are trying to make. Biden defined his entire political persona around centrism, bipartisanship, moderation, etc. He certainly made major mistakes (e.g. mismanaging the Afghan pullout, running for reelection); however, he didn't really display the cruelty or intolerance of different ways of life that is a core part of Trump's brand.
I mean, that might be how he defined his persona, but I don't think it's borne out by the facts. I think there was quite a lot of intolerance of anybody that didn't fit in with the left wing view of culture war issues espoused by his government.
He also oversaw numerous prosecutions of his political opponent, solely designed to stop him running.
> He also oversaw numerous prosecutions of his political opponent, solely designed to stop him running.
Odd conclusion. Why would you think solely? Are you familiar with the evidence in the documents case?
In the documents case, Trump clearly violated the law, based on evidence now in the public record. National security documents he was not entitled to were handled illegally, in ways that others have been prosecuted and convicted for. In really, really bad and scary ways, like nuclear-level secrets in an unlocked closet ways. With pictures. And videos. In the place he lets random foreign enemy political figures AND THEIR SECURITY STAFF run around.
The predominant reason someone like Biden or Bush doesn’t get prosecuted is because they don’t do this shit. Second, because of norms, they transparently cooperate when they make mistakes. Even still, Trump was handled with kid gloves. The documents prosecution took years and was ultimately a massive waste of time.
So if the sole reason was to disadvantage Trump, wasn’t it real dumb? Wouldn’t a more reasonable motivation be that the hundreds of elite law enforcement agents were doing their jobs / protect the country from a clear and present national security threat?
“this shit” was not a referent to mishandling classified material.
It was a referent to Trump having thousands of documents, including nuclear secrets and other SCIF material.
Please provide evidence of any of these other people doing it with nuclear secrets.
Please provide evidence of these other people risking national security by giving access to their sock drawers or email servers. Trump lets anyone into Mar A Lago. Anyone including known Chinese spies: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/11/759906611/chinese-woman-who-b...
I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't let just anyone into the rooms where the secret documents were. You realise Mar a Lago is a 17 acre country club, right? It's not a 3 bedroom house.
And if you think Gmail is secure you need to read up on the DNC email leak.
So yeah. I do think he completely and openly abused our country and everything it stands for, by letting anyone into those rooms, exactly as you implied. We know for a fact that ONE Chinese spy has been caught. I linked it already. So for all the other spies that weren’t caught - including Israeli, German, Russian, etc - they know exactly what Trump had. It’s a shame we don’t.
My assumption is that he wasn’t prosecuted for treason because the documents weren’t actually valuable. Classified doesn’t mean important, just that we obey laws about it.
