Since all of the civilian (MSM/big-tech) and legal venues all slammed the door on exposing the mountains of evidence of fraud, I wonder if Trump would need to "sell" the top brass on moving forward with a take-over of the US government.
I understand that he could unilaterally enact it, but what is the next step beyond that?
The way my simple mind envisions it, it would be a round-table discussion with sec of defense, and all the armed services chairs. There Trump would present all the evidence, making a clear compelling case that the votes were stolen.
That would be a great time to reveal the IC's evidence (as well as their possible complicity).
IOW, this would be literally the last available avenue for someone with a say in the matter (and guns to back it up) to hear the truth and act on it.
He wouldnt enact it unless the military was behind him already.
He would need to provide them with the evidence, tell them the courts have refused to here said evidence and only after the courts agree to take the case should IA be lifted. If courts refuse to take the case trump should remain in power no matter what. But trump should remind the military that he’s expended and exhausted every other legal means.
If it's a lawful order (which it is) it will take a little time to plan the operation. Maybe that is what is going on? Lots of moving parts, new SOP's, new ROE's. But not that long. Days maybe tops. They already have playbooks for it. Probably many different ones for different scenarios and certainly one for massive election fraud.
I'm not saying he does it but he sure is being quiet which is what a commander would be before a major operation.
If this is indeed what is happening (50/50 odds would be VERY generous), then him getting banned from Twitter might be a blessing. It would help keep him focused.
Not if they thought he was crazy. Or believed the media's characterization of him.
They would resign. Somebody else would do it no problem. Many in the ranks support him, just not the slugs Obama frontloaded.
You don't know your history.
He wouldn't have to sell it to them, he's the commander in chief. Literally the boss of the military.
While I 100% agree with you on the logic, the fact is that he would want to sit them down and present to any who are not already in the know. Passing orders down is much more effective when you believe in the cause and aren’t just parroting.
No, I get that. And their roles, if anything beyond that, is advisory. But still, having the brass understand the importance to the Republic, might help to keep everyone's head in the game.
You're question is essentially "Does the military get to decide if they enact the order?" And the answer is no.
The top people do. That's what we expect of them. Remember how the "just following orders" isn't supposed to be a valid defense?
Your argument is that people still have free will? Yeah, ok. Sure.
Here's how that could go...
Boss: mop the floors
Top brass: no, I'm against that
Boss: k, you're fired. Hey you, mop the floors or you're fired.
2nd to top brass: ok.
That's now how these things work. When it comes to the military, the leader can certainly TRY to say "you're fired" to the top brass. When he turns to the next in line though, they're going to look at their boss for an indication for what to do.
They get to determine if the orders are lawfully orders. Can even slow walk looking over then if necessary. So yes they can by all means say no. The law seems to be stretched to an interesting degree of late
Like, for instance, if the president lawfully enacted the insurrection act?
If he declares it it would be a reasonable time based on word of law. Now if he were to target all political adversaries the military may wonder whats up and decide to review. Its not just the declarations.
The steos taken to fight a war must be as lawfully as the war itself must be declared lawfully
While that may be the law, it is not reality. To do things like this you need to have a firm grip on your keys of power, because they would be taking a great risk if you were to fail. He needs to convince the individual generals that if they were to back him, then he would be able to convince the rest of the military to do the same and to keep power afterwards. And this is where he needs to present a strong case for election fraud.
Military 'brass" are no longer in charge of Secret Service. That's what the restructuring of DoD as all about. They now report directly to Miller - who is NOT a traitor_ and thus to Trump. The "brass" have been cut out of the equation.
What makes you think the brass didn't ask Trump to run in the first place?
And then what? The special forces aren't going to do shit when 10 divisions come rolling down to D.C. He needs the rest of the military if he wants to pull something like this off.
If he does, then it was probably their idea to begin with.