I am confused.


Originally Posted by Manual for Courts Martial, Rule 916(d)
It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.

Yes snap to lawful orders ... but should anyone snap to when a president issues unlawful, or ethically compromised orders? I suspect DoD concluded the stop order from OMB was illegal and did not follow the presidents orders ... NSC Adv Bolton did not snap to and ordered rescinding the illegal order

This occupant of the WH has exposed himself as a possible unwitting agent of Russia. Would following his orders be the same as Putin ordering American soldiers?

I seriously believe the SC should have emptied the docket and considered only the Constitutional issues raised by this occupant and his attempted destruction of America. He believes he is above the law and operates as if he is a monarch.


ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
America can survive bad policy, but not destruction of our Democratic institutions