Letter from All Ten Living Former U.S. Defense Secretaries - The election is over. There's no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of a U.S. election.

By Ashton Carter, Dick Cheney, William Cohen, Mark Esper, Robert Gates, Chuck Hagel, James Mattis, Leon Panetta, William Perry and Donald Rumsfeld

January 3, 2021 at 4:00 PM CST

As former secretaries of defense, we hold a common view of the solemn obligations of the U.S. armed forces and the Defense Department. Each of us swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We did not swear it to an individual or a party.

American elections and the peaceful transfers of power that result are hallmarks of our democracy. With one singular and tragic exception that cost the lives of more Americans than all of our other wars combined, the United States has had an unbroken record of such transitions since 1789, including in times of partisan strife, war, epidemics and economic depression. This year should be no exception.

Our elections have occurred. Recounts and audits have been conducted. Appropriate challenges have been addressed by the courts. Governors have certified the results. And the electoral college has voted. The time for questioning the results has passed; the time for the formal counting of the electoral college votes, as prescribed in the Constitution and statute, has arrived.

As senior Defense Department leaders have noted, “there’s no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of a U.S. election.” Efforts to involve the U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory. Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic.

Transitions, which all of us have experienced, are a crucial part of the successful transfer of power. They often occur at times of international uncertainty about U.S. national security policy and posture. They can be a moment when the nation is vulnerable to actions by adversaries seeking to take advantage of the situation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...2ba_story.html

By Ashton Carter, Dick Cheney, William Cohen, Mark Esper, Robert Gates, Chuck Hagel, James Mattis, Leon Panetta, William Perry and Donald Rumsfeld

January 3, 2021 at 4:00 PM CST

As former secretaries of defense, we hold a common view of the solemn obligations of the U.S. armed forces and the Defense Department. Each of us swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We did not swear it to an individual or a party.

American elections and the peaceful transfers of power that result are hallmarks of our democracy. With one singular and tragic exception that cost the lives of more Americans than all of our other wars combined, the United States has had an unbroken record of such transitions since 1789, including in times of partisan strife, war, epidemics and economic depression. This year should be no exception.

Our elections have occurred. Recounts and audits have been conducted. Appropriate challenges have been addressed by the courts. Governors have certified the results. And the electoral college has voted. The time for questioning the results has passed; the time for the formal counting of the electoral college votes, as prescribed in the Constitution and statute, has arrived.

As senior Defense Department leaders have noted, “there’s no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of a U.S. election.” Efforts to involve the U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory. Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic.

Transitions, which all of us have experienced, are a crucial part of the successful transfer of power. They often occur at times of international uncertainty about U.S. national security policy and posture. They can be a moment when the nation is vulnerable to actions by adversaries seeking to take advantage of the situation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...2ba_story.html Originally Posted by Tiny

did you post this because these people think this is Thailand?

there was never any possibility of any coup by the military. and yet these self-serving goombahs felt it necessary to make such a statement?


what are they afraid of?

did you post this because these people think this is Thailand?

there was never any possibility of any coup by the military. and yet these self-serving goombahs felt it necessary to make such a statement?


what are they afraid of? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You should be asking why did they write this and publish it today.

Trump brought Flynn to the White House to discuss his idea to impose martial law and re-run the election.

did you post this because these people think this is Thailand?

there was never any possibility of any coup by the military. and yet these self-serving goombahs felt it necessary to make such a statement?


what are they afraid of? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

If you believe that, then you're an idiot. Which, you know, I don't think you are.

It's a preemptive strike in case your fearless leader orders anyone to shoot. Or just move against Democracy - big D. You big D.

did you post this because these people think this is Thailand?

there was never any possibility of any coup by the military. and yet these self-serving goombahs felt it necessary to make such a statement?


what are they afraid of? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You should be asking why did they write this and publish it today.

Trump brought Flynn to the White House to discuss his idea to impose martial law and re-run the election. Originally Posted by Tiny

Exactly why they wrote it....because of Flynn.

He was a shitty voice in the beginning and is even shittier here at the end.

By Ashton Carter, Dick Cheney, William Cohen, Mark Esper, Robert Gates, Chuck Hagel, James Mattis, Leon Panetta, William Perry and Donald Rumsfeld

January 3, 2021 at 4:00 PM CST

As former secretaries of defense, we hold a common view of the solemn obligations of the U.S. armed forces and the Defense Department. Each of us swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We did not swear it to an individual or a party.

American elections and the peaceful transfers of power that result are hallmarks of our democracy. With one singular and tragic exception that cost the lives of more Americans than all of our other wars combined, the United States has had an unbroken record of such transitions since 1789, including in times of partisan strife, war, epidemics and economic depression. This year should be no exception.

Our elections have occurred. Recounts and audits have been conducted. Appropriate challenges have been addressed by the courts. Governors have certified the results. And the electoral college has voted. The time for questioning the results has passed; the time for the formal counting of the electoral college votes, as prescribed in the Constitution and statute, has arrived.


Then what gives Senators the right to refuse unless there is further debate which is what I believe will happen on Jan. 6th? Somewhere in there, this must exist and if it doesn't, the whole process will be un-constitutional and meaningless. So what's the big fuss? Let the process, as irritating as it may be to some folks, play out? The numbers do not appear to be there but what if they were?


As senior Defense Department leaders have noted, “there’s no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of a U.S. election.” Efforts to involve the U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory.


And this is where the straw man argument comes in. Because General Flynn made Trump aware that the military "could be used" under some circumstances, the "hair on fire people" run to the printing press and report that Trump is getting ready to bring in the military which was never a fact but when has that stopped this MSM? Rile up the folks, give them fake news and let them tear into each other! yeah, that's the ticket!


Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic.


Which is why it will not and never was going to happen.


Transitions, which all of us have experienced, are a crucial part of the successful transfer of power. They often occur at times of international uncertainty about U.S. national security policy and posture. They can be a moment when the nation is vulnerable to actions by adversaries seeking to take advantage of the situation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...2ba_story.html Originally Posted by Tiny

https://constitutioncenter.org/inter...ii/clauses/350

As the Supreme Court wrote in

McPherson v. Blacker

(1892), which rejected a constitutional challenge to a Michigan law providing for selection of Electors by a district system, “the appointment and mode of appointment of Electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States.” We have no uniform national system for appointing Electors, which means the legislatures do not have to consult the public at all. When members of the Florida legislature in 2000 threatened to abandon the results of the statewide popular contest and appoint Electors for a particular candidate, the Supreme Court in

Bush v. Gore

(2000) appeared to endorse their power to do so by denying that citizens have a constitutional right to vote in presidential elections. As the majority put it, “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for Electors for the President of the United States. . .” When it comes to presidential elections, the voters are at the mercy of the state legislatures.

This is where the "contingent election procedures" comes into play.

While that scenario did not happen, it could have. So when somebody tells you that the vote of the electors is final, you now know where to direct them to clear up that mis-understanding.

I'm still trying to track down, chapter and verse, what Senator Hawley and others say they are going to do on the 6th but I haven't been successful yet but I did find this which I thought was interesting.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisond...h=1dc6ffab7573


The Senate and House will meet Jan. 6 to formally tally state’s Electoral College votes for the presidential election — Biden won 306-232.

A state’s results can only be contested if a lawmaker from both the House and Senate submit a formal challenge to the results, which will force the two chambers to split up and have up to two hours of debate on the state’s results.


So obviously, this is part of the constitution, what article and clause I don't know but what Republican House and Senate members plan to due on Jan. 6th, is constitutional. Maybe not advisable and probably will not win but it is their right to do so and will face no punishment from the courts IMHO for doing so.




Multiple Republican House lawmakers have announced their intention to challenge the results and several senators have suggested they may do so as well, with the New York Times reporting that potential challenges are likely to target Arizona, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia and Wisconsin’s vote counts.

The two chambers of Congress will each vote on the challenged state’s results, which will almost assuredly affirm Biden’s victory: the House has a Democratic majority and thus would not overturn the certified vote count, and there have been enough Republican senators that have acknowledged Biden’s victory to stop the Senate from voting to flip the results.


If the Senate did vote to overturn a state’s results and the House upheld them, federal law stipulates that the slate of electors that have “been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof” will count, which in every contested state would be the certified results showing Biden’s win.

Biden has a large enough margin of victory in the Electoral College that lawmakers would have to overturn multiple states’ results to have any hope of overturning the election and reelecting Trump.
So that is the procedure, like it or not. Your welcome.

You should be asking why did they write this and publish it today.

Trump brought Flynn to the White House to discuss his idea to impose martial law and re-run the election. Originally Posted by Tiny

if Flynn was still a serving General you might have reason for concern. he doesn't command any troops now.

If you believe that, then you're an idiot. Which, you know, I don't think you are.

It's a preemptive strike in case your fearless leader orders anyone to shoot. Or just move against Democracy - big D. You big D.

Che's last publicity photo ...





Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Patron Saint of freedom fighters ..

if Flynn was still a serving General you might have reason for concern. he doesn't command any troops now.









Patron Saint of freedom fighters ..



Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Dump's last publicity stunt: Hearts and minds.

what you guy worried about? a Hollywood movie is .. real??







BAHHAAHAAA

This is serious folks.

Talkin' 'bout the end o' the worl' HERE!

H I M won.

Flynn is another off the charts crazy. The kind of people that like trump and trump appoints