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.
You're question is essentially "Does the military get to decide if they enact the order?" And the answer is no.
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