Active Duty Major calls for Trump to be impeached and removed
- Thread starter RoseBowlorBust
- Start date
Nah... the rules exist for a reason. Major Watson fully understood those rules and fully understood the consequences for breaking them. He also understood that he would be arrested for speaking where he spoke. Again, that was the entire point.
And I answered you. See below, bolded to make it easier. Those are the windows to hold the highest seat accountable. It's not like a regular job.
If that still doesn't make sense, you will just have to live with @Ktrain1969 's answer.
President isn't a regular job. If that doesn't make sense then I guess you will just have to live with K's moronic post, too.
I hope you're not saying that military should just do whatever the hell they want because the Trump Administration is corrupt. We took an oath to the Constitution not to the Administration and we follow the uniform code of military justice. Now, sure we can talk about Trump's other atrocities but you should know by now there really isn't an argument there , because I am not a trump supporter so I'm not sure what you would gain from that but go ahead hit me with whatever you want.
Raider (@iwillnotbesilenced.bsky.social)
ACTIVE DUTY AIR FORCE MAJOR CALLS FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF TRUMP! This speech is historical ✊bsky.app
Raider (@iwillnotbesilenced.bsky.social)
ACTIVE DUTY AIR FORCE MAJOR CALLS FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF TRUMP! This speech is historical ✊
Because the dude is military and has to support the Commander in Chief If I were him, I would warm up my resume as he will be history
I believe my sack is strong enough to know that my oath was to the Constitution and not to the Trump Administration and their actions that shouldn't change decades of military honor code and tradition. I have no issue with what the major did, I simply pointed out that there will be consequences for the path he chose. Huey chose to quadruple down on the facts and yet you want to blast me for standing firm and support of military code and not bending to Trump and his cronies.
What's the alternative? Do whatever Trump wants? These aren't normal times. Trump is already trying to use the military against Americans. The military serves the Constitution. Not Trump.
If the military serves the Constitution and not Trump then why are you arguing that they can't oppose him?
So the military can't oppose the president in any capacity? Even if that President is a direct threat to the Constitution and the people it protects?
Same question to you. Is the military beholden to the president even if he threatens Americans? I'd appreciate if you stopped avoiding this.
I've explained why and literally copy and pasted the exact quotes from the Department of Defense regulations. I don't know how else to get it across to you, huey. Unless you can point to some exact unlawful order specifically given to that major or his unit I'm at a loss with you.
Trump has given many unlawful orders. Both in general and those directed towards the military.
Use of federal troops in Los Angeles is unlawful, judge says
The Trump administration's use of federal troops in Los Angeles to conduct law enforcement operations is unlawful, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.
abcnews.com
Last edited:
Not only can the military legally disobey the president, they are bound by military code to do so if what he orders is unlawful.
Which makes your statement: "I hope you're not saying that military should just do whatever the hell they want because the Trump Administration is corrupt." Baffling.
The military is duty bound to oppose a corrupt administration. It's in the military code.
abcnews.com
Which makes your statement: "I hope you're not saying that military should just do whatever the hell they want because the Trump Administration is corrupt." Baffling.
The military is duty bound to oppose a corrupt administration. It's in the military code.
What the military oath of enlistment says about legal and illegal orders
The call from Democratic veterans in Congress highlights the federal law that dictates the conduct of members of the military.
abcnews.com
Last edited:
Fair. I was wondering if you were going to hope for jail time.
Because there is a double standard for politicians and Military members there has been for as long as I can remember regardless of administration and I've been telling folks this for years. Politicians can leak classified information all day long but if any of us in the intelligence Community do it it's the end of our careers and that's just one example. There is a clear set of "the rules are for the not for me."
and yes, it's worse under Trump, but not unique.
It's absolutely unique under Trump. No other president has routinely violated the constitution and ours laws like him. Stop sane washing this this scumbag.
Youre confusing "not unique" with "not serious." Those aren't the same thing. I explicitly said it's worse under Trump. My point is simply that politicians and military personnel (especially those of us int he IC) have operated under different standards for decades. That's a criticism of the system not a dadgum defense of Trump.
I fed this thread into ChatGPT (out of curiousity) and had it analyse its majority contributors.
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT said:
Thread Analysis (Behavioral & Debate Style)
Methodology: This isn't an analysis of who's right politically or an attempt to diagnose anyone psychologically. It's simply an evaluation of each poster's communication style, reasoning patterns, emotional vs. analytical approach, and overall contribution to the discussion based solely on this thread.| Poster | Analysis |
|---|---|
| RoseBowlorBust | Activist / Discussion Starter. Framed the discussion around the symbolic importance of the Major's actions. Focused more on principles and moral conviction than procedural or legal questions. |
| alaskanseminole | Subject-Matter Expert / Procedural Thinker. Consistently tried to keep the discussion focused on military regulations rather than broader politics. Distinguished legality from morality and repeatedly acknowledged nuance ("I agree with the Major, but..."). Strong use of evidence and personal experience. |
| Huey Grey 2 | Values-Driven Advocate. Passionate and persistent. Nearly every discussion returned to the broader issue of Trump's conduct and perceived double standards. Raised legitimate moral questions, but frequently redirected conversations after receiving answers, giving the impression of talking past others rather than resolving the original point. |
| tarheelbybirth1 | Analytical Moralist. One of the strongest contributors. Accepted factual premises (that the Major violated regulations) but argued those violations were morally justified as civil disobedience. Disagreed without misrepresenting opposing arguments. |
| Thefunksouljon | Mediator / Clarifier. Frequently stepped in to clarify what others were actually saying. Helped keep discussions grounded and corrected misunderstandings instead of escalating them. |
| RagnarLothbrok | Balanced Contributor. Strong opinions but generally responded to the arguments being made rather than attacking strawmen. Used sarcasm at times but contributed thoughtful points and occasionally challenged his own "side." |
| WDDT | Comic Relief / Occasional Troll. Primarily used humor and sarcasm. Rarely advanced the central discussion but helped keep the thread from becoming entirely serious. |
| PW Herman | Fairness-Oriented Debater. Focused on what the rules should be rather than what they currently are. Reacted strongly to perceived unfairness, sometimes conflating explanations of the rules with support for the rules themselves. |
| DBQStarhawk | Practical Subject-Matter Contributor. Added relevant military context without escalating the discussion. Expanded the conversation with experience rather than ideology. |
Overall Observations
- Most analytical contributors: alaskanseminole, tarheelbybirth1, DBQStarhawk, Thefunksouljon.
- Most emotionally driven contributors: Huey Grey 2, RoseBowlorBust, PW Herman.
- Best at engaging opposing arguments fairly: tarheelbybirth1 and Thefunksouljon.
- Most informative: alaskanseminole and DBQStarhawk.
- Biggest communication challenge: Several posters were debating different questions. Some focused on military regulations, others on civil disobedience, and others on Trump's conduct. That mismatch led to many participants talking past each other rather than directly disagreeing.
Um. Signalgate?
One example doesn't change my point. My point wasn't that no politician has ever faced consequences. It's politicians and military/intelligence personnel have historically been held to different standards of accountability...FACT!
I agree with that but it sounds like you are also saying its worse under Trump and Bolton is an example that this President went after a republican politician.
...and then ignored Pete, JD, etc. in the Signal App bs and we all sat here and watched Tulsi literally lie about it on live TV.
This your opinion only and you are entitled to it. I do not agree.
Actually, it's not an opinion. It's fact. Care to put your opinion up against facts stemming from DoD and IC regulations?
First pf all, Signal is not an authorized system for transmitting or discussing classified information. DoD Manual 5200.01, DoDI 8500.01 and DoDI 8420.01 all require classified information to be created, transmitted, and stored only on approved classified systems...not commercial messaging apps on personal devices.
Secondly, what was discussed wasn't just politics. Those jackwagons where discussin the timing of pending military strikes, operational sequencing, targets, weapons/platforms being used, and real-time updates during the op. Would you like me to specifically explain how that intel can be used?
Then Tulsi claimed "there was no classified information". WHAT!? Either she was lying or she's suggesting that detailed military operational information somehow falls outside the categories covered by the SCG we in the IC are all required to follow. You'd think the DNI would have read one at some point, no? Once this made the news and we saw how it was being handled (or not), my own Signal app was blowing up with conversations with my former NSA, CIA, etc. collegues ALL discussing the exact dadgum double standard I just mentioned.
If any of us peasants in the IC had transmitted the same operational information over Signal, we'd have lost our clearance alont with a bunch of other punitive measures. Anyone who doesn't understand this is a fool.
Dude....very respectfully I still strongly disagree with your opinion and the information you cobbled together from msm and written by enemies of this administration. Now unless you can come and confirm you were in a scif and/or on the chat where this occurred then you know you are just analyzing he said she said stuff.Actually, it's not an opinion. It's fact. Care to put your opinion up against facts stemming from DoD and IC regulations?
First pf all, Signal is not an authorized system for transmitting or discussing classified information. DoD Manual 5200.01, DoDI 8500.01 and DoDI 8420.01 all require classified information to be created, transmitted, and stored only on approved classified systems...not commercial messaging apps on personal devices.
Secondly, what was discussed wasn't just politics. Those jackwagons where discussin the timing of pending military strikes, operational sequencing, targets, weapons/platforms being used, and real-time updates during the op. Would you like me to specifically explain how that intel can be used?
Then Tulsi claimed "there was no classified information". WHAT!? Either she was lying or she's suggesting that detailed militar information somehow falls outside the categories covered by the SCG we in the IC are all required to follow. You'd think the DNI would have read one at some point, no? Once this made the news and we saw how it was being handled (or not), my own Signal app was blowing up with conversations with my former NSA, CIA, etc. collegues ALL discussing the exact dadgum double standard I just mentioned.
If any of us peasants in the IC had transmitted the same operational information over Signal, we'd have lost our clearance alont with a bunch of other punitive measures. Anyone who doesn't understand this is a fool.
Why do I need to be in a SCIF? I was an Intelligence Analyst from 1994-2021 having worked in/for NSA for over half that period. I tought Security Classification procedures from 2000-2004. I read the leaked info and directly cross referenced it with the CENTCOM SCG. It's not hard.
Doesn't mean you were anywhere near any of this in 25. You know security and information is very compartmentalized. You know a lot from your time but you dont know everything. You have a guess and thats fine. I have no problem with you giving your OPINION.
Whether I was read into this operation is completely irrelevant. I already know categories of information and how to determine classification levels is spelled out for us in the applicable SCG. Here's an example from open source:
Regardless, tthe DoD Inspector General came to the same conclusion in his report last Decemebr. The OIG compared the Signal chat to the original USCENTCOM SECRET//NOFORN operational emails and said a lot of what Hegseth sent on Signal matched information USCENTCOM had
classified as SECRET//NOFORN
. The OIG also said he transmitted sensitive, nonpublic operational information over Signal in violation of DoDI 8170.01. That's not my opinion...that's the DoD's Inspector General's finding.The funny thing is, I had this argument 8 months before this report even came out and didn't come across it until tonight. I already knew I was telling you fact, not opinion, but this pretty much solidifies it. Unless you think the OIG is just giving an opinion.
Read it for yourself.
LINK to DODIG_2026_021.PDF: https://www.dodig.mil/reports.html/...nses-reported-use-of-a-commercially-availabl/
Why wasn't there any punishment? "The rules are for thee, not for me." The Secretary of Push-ups is an OCA, so he basically reclassified the stuff and left all of us in the IC looking at each other like, WTF!? It's the same reaction we ALL had when Hillary did it. The protection of National Security information is non-partisan, so the double standard is bs!
Last edited: