General Milley Commits Treason

That's simply wrong. Our arsenal was not put there to make anyone worry. the last thing America wants is to have China thinking we are going to launch an attack on them.

 

Will Woodward and Costa be questioned?

 

""What, huh, Now you think the Secretary of State can't get a copy or transcript of Milleys call?
What planet are you on. lol""

""If the reporting in Woodward’s book is accurate, it represents a disgraceful and unprecedented act of insubordination by the Nation’s top military officer," Miller said"" (from your Fox link)

Answer your own question from your own Fox link...... Miller has not looked at the transcript or listened to the phone call or he would not have made the above statement like that.

 

So you can deduct all on your own that the Secretary of State has no authority to read transcripts of the people who work for him because he hasn't read it yet but you can't conceive that Milley refusing to dispute the claims against him of treason could possibly mean he isn't innocent.
Thats quite the convenient logic you're working with, isn't it.

 

YOU just described these criminal reporters as god like and unquestionable and YOU put them in the 5 star ratings... they are criminals if they leaked classified information.... which sounds funny after we had 4 years
of unending unquestioned leaks of world leaders.

"""And now you think (for some odd reason) leaks are just impossible?"" you ask... Nope .... what I believe and you should open your eyes up to is... THEY ARE ILLEGAL.

 

How could you know it didn't address your points if you didn't read it. lol
Oh, you read it alright, but undisputable facts are like kryptonite to the left. If you could have disputed anything I posted you would have.
You didn't really think you were fooling someone with that post, did you? lol My 5 year old grandson wouldn't buy that excuse. But you thought it was sellable?
Now thats pretty telling right there.
But I do appreciate your inability to dispute it. I really wasn't expecting anything else from you.
Tell me, did you put your fingers in your ears and go lalalalalalalallalalalalala while you read it?

 

Your Secretary of State referred to the books claims.... not his own notes of the transcript he (did not) read.

Please show me where "Milley is refusing to dispute the claims" You are presuming to much.

Milley not publicly admitting or denying the claims does not mean he innocent or guilty... Welcome to America

 

You can always tell when someone knows they are losing an argument. They always go for the exaggeration claims because they can't argue the facts.
You want to know how many examples of exaggeration you have produced thus far?
1. I never claimed the reporters to be God like
2, I never claimed they were 5 star
3. I never claimed they were unquestionable
4. I never claimed leaks are impossible
5. I never claimed Milley was guilty
6. I never claimed there was hardcore evidence against Milley
7. I never claimed they were highly prized reporters

When you are done with all the exaggerations, we can have a discussion.

I claimed they were the reporters who got the watergate tapes and exposed the crimes that took down a sitting president of the United States.

I claimed they were a far cry from Alex Jones

I claimed the reporters held the information for 8 months for money, to sell their book.

I claimed And now you think (for some odd reason) leaks are just impossible?

I claimed Milley isn't disputing the claims made in the book.

I claimed the Secretary of Defense has the authority to read transcripts of his staffs calls

Now if you can address my claims without all the other exaggerations, help yourself.

 

Which means what to you

There is no such thing to produce. Do you even listen to yourself? How do I provide something he refuses to do?
Why don't you provide any statement he made disputing the claim in the book.

But your Secretary of State has no authority to read transcripts since he hasn't read it yet
Got it

 

I skimmed it. Yes, I've shown your "Indisputable facts" false, many times. And there's where I quit reading that post.

But, like Ive said attacking General Milley is only going to highlight how close tRump came to totally losing it and destroying the planet.

 

Per the legal definition of the word insurrection — they did indeed commit it
Per the legal definition of the word treason — he did not commit it

Yes. I get it

 

How do you show facts being wrong when you run from a post? It must be that same imaginary world where Trump was going to destroy the planet.

 

YET.

 

If it comes out he attempted to kill the president, tried to overthrow the government or levy war against the US then I will support him being charged.

 

What's going to come out is how pathologically manic Benedict Donald was after the election. How it got worse around January 6th, and down right marose afterwards.

 

Please look up the word DETERRENT. The whole idea is to make the bad guys worry when they do bad things.