I think I know what Joseph Maguire's problem is.

[Baitball Blogger]

As a military man, he can't divorce himself from an old oath that made the president his commander in chief. Because he's a Republican, he couldn't make a basic decision that put his country before the interests of the president. Instead, he sought direction and cover from the very people who were named in the complaint.

It's time for us to open our eyes and see the wrong-minded social construct that states that military men are always honorable and do not succumb to the tribalism that is the scourge of our Times.

[qazplm135]

1. no one is always honorable

no one.

But I read this "as a military man" (about to retire) and as an attorney/JAG that he was doing what he did his whole military career. He went to the attorneys and the boss and said, hey we've got a problem, and he expected they'd follow the law.

Foolish, naive for sure, but not necessarily "dishonorable."

[Baitball Blogger]

3. I have seen far too many retired officers who have acted less than

honorably in the community environment.

I'm just saying, Maguire deserves the grilling he's getting. No passes.

[qazplm135]

10. ah the "I know people" argument

at any one time there are probably half a million officers on active duty, and two to three times that who are former or retired.

But, you've seen far too many...well that couple of dozen certainly is a sufficient sample size to judge a couple of million.

[Perseus]

102. You have a point that I wish everyone would understand

But what happens is that big military shots like Flynn, Petreus, and others in our history (Benedict Arnold) are big shots who give the rest a bad name, and one of the biggest faults of humans is to generalize.

I believe there are more honorable men and women in the military than bad apples like the two I just mentioned.

On MaGuire, I think he lost his courage, and his sense of duty to the country when he went to the WH and the DOJ. His resistance to answer simple things like "Yes, I agree it should be investigated" show he is not fit for the position he holds. You are either a courageous person who doesn't care what a president or a AG says about you, and you uphold your duty to defend your country or you are just a tool for the crooks. It doesn't take too much common sense that you don't ask questions to the people who are being investigated, for those who are implicated. What did he expect?

[qazplm135]

103. I don't think it's fear

I think it's confusion and a mixed sense of loyalties and a dash of WTF am I doing here?

He gets this complaint a few days after being named the acting DNI. He doesn't have the experience base to deal with this stuff, and the people who thought would give him straight advice didn't, and now he's dropping into a political game/minefield.

I don't disagree with you that some of his answers were unnecessarily evasive. they were. I'm not sure that's necessarily born of cowardice though...or that he was trying to not do his duty.

[Mike 03]

4. I agree. I think he got overwhelmed and did what he was used to doing, going to his superiors.

[Hortensis]

44. Maquire has confirmed that his "problem" was implicit

upon joining this administration. A very large majority of qualified people, even those only partly honorable and only partly sensible, refused positions serving the Trump white house.

Maguire may be a scoundrel. But listening to his disgusting performance, my guess he's one of those who was assumed by himself and others to be honorable because he followed the rules in in properly structured environments but then thought and acted as those around him did when the rules that propped his behavior up were abandoned.

[olegramps]

60. His defense of his actions appear to be solely based on so-called Executive Privilege.

Just what are the limits of executive privilege? Could it apply to the ridiculous situation such as a hypothetical situation in which the president reveals details of military placements to the enemy for example? Just what are the limits? I would seem to think that when it involves treason, murder or any significant law it could not apply. It would seem to apply in this situation in regard to the protection of the vote which is paramount to the operation of a our form of government. The DNI in his testimony today when on and on about how important it is, yet he choose to provide Trump with exception under executive privilege. I wondered just why one of the Democrats didn't pick up on this since this seems to have been his major reason for not acting. Doesn't it make the standard that no one is above the law only applicable to the common folks?

[bigbrother05]

72. While he was right to not reveal his discussion with the Prez, he can't invoke EP

From my quick read of the complaint, which is all he had before yesterday, there is nothing in the ICIG's submittal that was protected. As such, the ADNI was imposing his opinion of what he thought the WH would view as EP.

He should have followed the WB law and sent the report on to the Intel Committees and let the WH invoke whatever EP they felt compelled to us when the Committees came for testimony.

It was not the ADNI's call to withhold the report or seek OLC/DoJ guidance, but he could have copied them when he sent it to cover his rear.

[stopdiggin]

101. other interpretations are out there

Some see the wording "shall" as the only relevant point here. However, it was opined at the time that there was at least a fair chance that congress would not WIN this battle (over disclosure of complaint). (Which makes it even more interesting that days later the notoriously pugnacious WH turns around and voluntarily releases it! What's up with that?)
Rather that try to lay out reasoning where I am only half competent, I'm going to include an excerpt for a Lawfare article from 6 days back.

Robert S Litt, Lawfare, Sept. 20, 2019 --
As I outlined here, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act provides that if the ICIG determines that a complaint about a matter of “urgent concern” is credible, he sends it to the DNI, who within seven days “shall ... forward” it to Congress together with any comments. But a matter of “urgent concern” is defined as “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration or operation of an intelligence activity within the authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information” (emphasis added). The alleged offer by the president, while perhaps criminal and possibly impeachable, does not obviously relate to any intelligence activity within the DNI’s authority.

Still, some have argued that the statute does not allow the DNI to make his own determination of the applicability of the statute but, instead, requires him to accept the ICIG’s determination that something is a matter of urgent concern. In this case, however, it appears that the DNI went to the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) for an opinion. OLC opinions are considered to be binding and authoritative interpretations of law within the executive branch. So if OLC in fact formally opined that this complaint was not an “urgent concern” as defined in the statute, the DNI could take the position that the ICIG must follow that interpretation.

Still, we know now that the ICIG also asked permission to transmit the complaint to the intelligence committees apart from the statute and was told he could not do so for reasons of privilege. Here again, a claim that the president’s communications with foreign leaders should be protected by a privilege is not, in the abstract, a frivolous one. Indeed, when Congress sought to obtain memoranda of Trump’s conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone cited a long history, going back to George Washington, of presidents declining to reveal such communications. The extent of such a privilege—and in particular whether it would protect communications that might constitute bribery—is untested. But if the White House asserted such a privilege, the ODNI would be bound to honor it. more ..

with these kinds of legitimate differences of opinion .. perhaps seeking out guidance was somewhat warranted under the circumstances. that said .. you take a job with this administration .. it's hard to argue your "pure" motives.

[Moostache]

82. Regardless of POTUS or party, the Congress MUST move to reign in Executive Privilege

The unitary executive theory that has been running amok since 9/11 is the finishing touch of Osama Bin Laden's plan.

First, he got us to be afraid and to sacrifice freedom for security and we got what Franklin always said we'd deserve - neither.

Then he got us to destroy or economy and invade Muslim populated lands - draining our resources in a vain and fruitless effort to drain his/al Qaeda/ ISIS / <insert next boogeyman here>. All we have to show for it is a few trillion dollars of debt and a generation of muslims who have known NOTHING but an invader/occupation force as America. They won't be forgetting that any time soon either...

Then (because of the financial collapse and strife and years of wasted money going into the war hole instead of into the country to change the economy and save the middle class), his plan managed to get the USA itself to fall for a pseudo-populist rant, to in effect turn to a madman, an unqualified fool who stomps around the world stage like a toddler in need of a nap and all the while the USA has been ceding control and power and authority AWAY from 3 co-equal branches of government and towards a unitary executive / dictatorship model...

Finally, we arrive here today, with the problem laid bare before the world to see - the United States is now under a policy of Executive Privilege so pervasive that the argument a President cannot even be INVESTIGATED or QUESTIONED or INFORMED ON has taken hold in 40-45% of the country and they are perilously close to handing over the entire reigns of government to a madman.

Devious, slow-developing, and I hate to admit it, brilliant. The plan to attack the United States, and then sit back and watch us destroy ourselves in response, is coming full circle right now...

Where are the 'patriots' of the GOP, of the right-wing? Why are they not pleading for their country back now? Nevermind, they get to use the N-word again in their social circles, so all is well apparently.

[Mike 03]

2. It does look that way, doesn't it?

I heard last night he never really wanted this job.

[Baitball Blogger]

5. Trump has been very clever about putting less than qualified people

in critical positions. At a minimum, he knows they will yield to him.

[Mike 03]

6. I don't want to sound like I'm taking MaGuire's side but he seems sincerely

conflicted. He doesn't have the stink of deception of say, William Barr.

[Midnight Writer]

95. Michael Lewis new book The Fifth Risk details the way Trump's people are sabotaging our agencies.

[Zambero]

7. Those with distinguished military careers

often choose to remain in public service in a civilian capacity. As such they are every bit as accountable to uphold the law and/or protect national security as those who did not serve. There is no dispensation or allowance for wrongdoing based on one's prior military service.

[Baitball Blogger]

17. Thank you. That's an important point.

I'm going to go on a rant, here, maybe going off tangent:

High-minded retired officers need to start looking around and look closely at the people who support them unconditionally. Because there is something going on with this support that they may not want to be a part of.

I'm just saying, living in a red leaning community, there is a strong influence to treat retired officers like Gold-Star families. They could make selfish decisions in their community leadership positions that benefit their friends and family members; and when you complain, you're treated as if you're unpatriotic.

Frankly, it feels like a rewrapping of old Southern ways that create white privilege communities. So it is suspect when you see the same behavior occurring in a way that favors a president who is following a nationalist, white supremacist agenda.

Not that I think Maguire is part of of that agenda. But I am pointing out how his tendency to yield to a higher rank moves Trump's agenda forward.

At a minimum, Maguire deserves a grilling.

[Mersky]

57. +1

[tblue37]

29. High up military officers have gone along to get along throughout their careers. Otherwise, they

don't become high up officers.

[Duppers]

105. Repubs think there should be.

I live among the retirees, mostly officers who sincerely think they are better, more patriotic Americans.

[RockRaven]

8. I think Trump likes appointing military types for because

he thinks they have 2 traits which appeal to his mobster-brain: loyalty to the group, and following the boss's orders.

Looks like in this case he was right.

[Baitball Blogger]

18. +1

[a kennedy]

19. +1000

[RobinA]

42. The Military

is an authoritarian model. It attracts and keeps people who are OK with authoritarianism, particularly in these non-draft days. It needs that to function. Me? I'd never go in the military, if I found myself there I'd be kicked out or quit. You wouldn't WANT me in the military. To many RobinAs in the military we'd be taken over by Iceland.

We need to recognize things for what they are and use them for what they are good at. There's a time and a place for military and there are times and places that should be kept very far away from the military.

[Baitball Blogger]

49. Totally agree. Well said.

[KPN]

66. Exactly.

[SilasSouleII]

74. There are exceptions

Silas Soule was one of them. Moral Courage can supersede.

[Mr.Bill]

77. My Industrial Management

professor in college said the military and jail are the only place where authority comes from the top down. Everywhere else authority exists only if the people below allow it to exist, because employees can quit. You can't quit being in the military or being in jail.

[Blue_true]

100. By the time Iceland thought of taking us over, we would have surrendered to Canada without a shot.

And we would have far better donuts too. Beer, not so much, but that is fine with me.

[flibbitygiblets]

62. Good points all. He also likes them around because it makes him look tough by association

"My Generals", he's said over and over.

Military types also tend to lean heavily (R), and as others have mentioned, are loyal, don't question their superiors etc. Because of this, they are easy pickings for a coup as was perpetrated by Trumputin.

[calimary]

96. If he fancies himself a big-ass Supreme Generalissimo then of course he wants

to surround himself with a lot of military brass. Don’t forget, he still wants his big-ass orgasmic military parade, too. Simply MUST look like the Tough Guy of All Tough Guys. With ALL the trappings.

[flibbitygiblets]

97. Gotta keep up with the Jong-Un'ses, after all!

Can't be a real dictator without grotesque displays of military capabilities, now can we?

[Corgigal]

9. This is just my opinion,

however I also served for 8 years in the USAF. However, I was active duty, not an officer. I have never met an officer ( besides possibly physicians), who are not setting themselves up for the next job. The high paying civilian career that awaits them. Active duty members, sure we gather skill sets to make us employable to another career once we leave the military. Big bucks rarely figure into it, just a middle class profession, if we get some luck.

Officers will do shit that active duty won't. Everyone thinks the opposite but I didn't see it that way. I just did my job and stayed away from officers, if I could help it. They play politics at the highest level to gather the best footing for themselves, so when I hear about someone military history I get suspicious.

Sorry if this upsets anyone, but it's something to consider.

[gopiscrap]

12. totally agree

[qazplm135]

15. sigh

I expect folks on our side to exhibit better logic.

I've been BOTH Enlisted and now Officer.

BOTH Enlisted and Officers run the same spectrum of human virtues and failings that every other cohort of humans do.

Some probably do set themselves up for the next job, others take their job and their obligations quite seriously. Whether military or not, Enlisted or Officer.

You knowing a handful of folks out of millions does not make you an expert on the entirety.

I'm a judge advocate...my "high-paying" future career has been sitting there for almost 15 years, yet I stayed in. Now that I'm getting out, I'm strongly considering going into K-12 teaching vice continuing in the law.

I'm not a saint. I'm not an exception. I'm not some paragon. I also know plenty of others doing similar things. So, the reality is you have all types in the military.

[Baitball Blogger]

24. I agree you have all types in the military.

But the social environment in some of our communities expect us to treat them like sacred cows. Some are taking advantage of that privilege and are harming our welfare. When we speak up, they yield to the claim that they are officers and no one should question their honor.

Not a great feeling to have to question that claim of honor, when you were raised by a father who loved his military service and civilian connection to the corps. But, my father would also expect me to stand up and speak up about the lopsided situation because I am an American.

[qazplm135]

26. the fact that we elevate military personnel

is not the fault of military personnel.

Our society has gyrated wildly through the years between demonizing and deifying military personnel.

The fact that some folks take EITHER of those two extreme positions is also not the fault of military personnel.

The possibility that SOME military personnel take advantage of the latter does not somehow render all military personnel (or Officers) the same.

Focus on whatever you think the issue is, not on folks who have nothing to do with the issue.

[Baitball Blogger]

37. Oh, yes it is the military's fault.

Because these officers are using their military service as an umbrella of protection. And the military has created an environment that leads them to believe they are untouchable. The military is an organization that creates a stratified system and ranks people. The term, "Rank has its privileges," applies. They are accustom to having people below their rank, yield to their decisions. This is an inappropriate expectation in civilian life.

If the military remains silent, they become complicit.

[qazplm135]

54. Explain to me

How you have a military that doesn't stratify people and put some in charge of others.

That's just a ridiculous complaint.

[Baitball Blogger]

67. I am in no way arguing with how the military operates when people

are in actual service. They are protecting us overseas, against foreign incursion and different rules apply. I am pointing out how the things that work when we're under fire, are not adaptable to civilian life. Obedience, tribalism, privilege are not compatible with freedom and property rights.

The answer is appropriate training so they can blend in with civilian jobs seamlessly. The alternative are people that are using authoritarian behavior in order to hide the fact that they are not qualified. For those of us who see it on the local level, it is a factor in the degradation of integrity in our communities.

[qazplm135]

75. again gross generalization

privilege is a principle that applies throughout civilian life in a multitude of ways.
So does obedience. We have heirarchies throughout human endeavors in every way from the family unit (parents over children) to business (Presidents, vice presidents CEOs, middle managers, direct supervisors, etc).

His problem wasn't necessarily even tied to what the military teaches (here's a hint, I've never been taught blind loyalty).
Now, one of the main problems was that he was the ACTING director and had been there I believe a few days when this complaint hit his desk. Pretty rough introduction to his new position. There's nothing here to indicate that he was "using authoritarian behavior in order to hid the fact that he was not qualified."

You clearly have a poor view of the military and those that serve in any manner but literal defense of nation, and you have, IMO, a poor understanding of the folks that make up the military based on a few, apparently, negative personal interactions or observations.

You know, I've met a few idiot psychologist/psychiatrists in my days as a criminal defense attorney. I don't assume that all psychs are quacks and assholes because I know a few who are.

[Baitball Blogger]

81. As long as they use their military service as a broad-brush expectation of

subservience, the military will be held accountable. As far as honor is concerned, the military needs to stand up and distance themselves from these overreaches. And they are ample in our red counties.

This is not the exception around here. I have had my property rights trampled because this community has had retired officers who have taken over community positions, and abused those position. It's a mindset.

And the fact that you're a criminal defense attorney tells me that you will not even consider the mal-adaptation that goes on in our small communities.

[qazplm135]

90. lol

first, PART of my time has been as a criminal defense attorney.

Another part of my time has been as a senior prosecutor.

And if the mere fact that I was a criminal defense attorney tells you much of anything about me goes back to your clear tendency to make far-ranging baseless assumptions about people based solely on what they do for a living.

And the middle there clearly shows you have a grudge because someone did you wrong who also happened to be ex-military.

so it's a waste to continue this any further.

[Rabrrrrrr]

73. Teaching vice to K-12? :D I know it's a typo (assume it is) but I can't figure out

what it's a typo of.

Anyway - thank you for your post. I detest any kind of logic which says "all of group A do..." or "everyone who's a B does..."

Except some statements like "All Nazis are shitstains and it should be legal to kick them in the head" which actually are true.

But yeah - some officers are asses, most aren't. Some enlisted are asses, most aren't. Stereotypes annoy me, and even in the world of liberal/progressive where we tend to be rational and thoughtful, the stereotypes creep in.

[qazplm135]

76. not a typo

using vice in the definition of "versus" this vice that...k-12 teaching vice continuing in the law.

But agree with rest.

[Rabrrrrrr]

79. Gotcha! I've never seen the word used that way before.

Thanks!

[qazplm135]

89. only when used as a preposition...

"in the place of" via dictionary.com.

[Mike 03]

20. Interesting insights. Thanks for posting this.

[Baitball Blogger]

21. I live in a community that is steep with the kind of officers you describe.

I'm sure that everything would have been manageable if it weren't for an environment here that was already down the rabbit hole.

[tblue37]

31. See my post #29 above. I assume you would agree? nt

[eleny]

11. What he had to do, the "shall" directive, is clear

Then he failed to accept the equal branch and role of Congress.

He took the partisan path instead of following the law. He zigged when he should have zagged.

He needs to resign, imo. I have no faith in his ability to follow the law.

[gopiscrap]

13. I agree

[uponit7771]

16. +1, that's what he's conveying by not saying he's was wrong not to follow the law.

[Baitball Blogger]

48. +1

[Mike 03]

14. His refusal to offer a personal opinion...

This is what irritates me about these hearings in general. We are talking about simple moral questions of what is ethical or unethical, and the answer is so plainly clear that we are talking about unethical behaviors. Why can't anyone stand up and call it what it is?

[uponit7771]

22. +1

[KPN]

70. Yup, where are the John Dean's who know the facts and call a duck a duck when they see one?

[dumbcat]

23. The Military Officer's Oath makes no mention

of the President or the Commander-in-Chief.

“I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

[Baitball Blogger]

25. Hmm. I have a soldier friend who posted the oath on her Facebook page.

The president was included in the oath. I remember because I commented that it was a good thing that the president came second to the Constitution. She agreed.

[qazplm135]

28. there are multiple oaths

the enlisted oath includes following the orders of the President and Officers appointed over them

The National Guard Oath includes the Gov and President.

Regardless, the President is the CiC so obviously there is also a duty of all to follow all LAWFUL orders of those above them, including the President.

When it's unlawful, the duty to the Constitution overwhelms the duty to the President (or any superior).

[dumbcat]

30. The Officer's Oath and the Enlisted Oath are different.

Many people don't realize that.

ETA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office

The first source I cited was from a whackjob site.

[Celerity]

36. your friend was posting the enlistment oath for non officers

United States Armed Forces oath of enlistment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces_oath_of_enlistment




here is the officers oath, no mention of the POTUS unless they are in the National Guard

United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office

[Baitball Blogger]

38. Wow! Good information.

So, officers have no reason to follow the president blindly.

[Celerity]

41. no one does, an illegal order is still an illegal order, POTUS or not nt

[Baitball Blogger]

45. But it removes the right-wing excuse altogether.

[Celerity]

50. oh, yes, for sure nt

[spike jones]

69. With Trump you can not both

defend the Constitution AND obey the orders of President of the United States.

[Celerity]

71. so so true!! nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. The other problem he has is that he's only the *acting* DNI

and Trump will sack him in a heartbeat if he says the wrong thing.

[tblue37]

34. Or if he does the right thing. nt

[RobinA]

51. Also In His Defense

simply as a person. This thing and his role in it has come out of left field and he's in the minefield that is this administration. I'm the first one to shake my head at how risk-loving and career-hating you'd have to be to take even a janitor position in this sh*t show, but I think people way underestimate the power of our current media/political industrial complex. If this guy acts like a deer in headlights, it's probably because he is.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

53. I agree. While he must have known the Trump White House is a sewer,

I don't think he ever expected to be forced to wade around in it himself.

[milestogo]

32. Comey certainly wasn't honorable.

[RobinA]

35. Maybe.

Colin Powell Syndrome. Tribalism is the very definition of military. Not that that has to be a bad thing. If it weren't for tribalism you couldn't have a functioning military, which sometimes you do need.

[Baitball Blogger]

39. Tribalism is a good thing when bullets are flying.

Not so much in civilian life.

And I think this bi-polar situation has created a strong division in our country. An American tragedy since the Kent shootings.

[RobinA]

52. Absolutely

Yes, everything in its place. Correctly understand what an entity is, what it is good at, what it is not good at, and utilize accordingly.

[Baitball Blogger]

64. We are a smart country. Why has it taken so long to figure this out?

I do have one theory. It is tough for military personnel to reconnect with civilian life, especially at good financial times. Think about what happened in the late nineties. Young people were becoming millionaires selling an e-box of nothing. Between military life and civilian repatriation there has to be some kind of training involved to help them get back into the flow. Because, the way that it is occurring now, they are just assisting in the degradation in the integrity of our business and civilian culture.

[lindysalsagal]

40. He was acting, and brand new. And wrong.

The veterans left to avoid owning this. Frump would have pummeled him.

[Baitball Blogger]

47. +1

[The Blue Flower]

43. I made this observation earlier

In addition to his fealty to the cic, he has been trained to take orders and do no more or less. I thought the same thing of Mueller.

[Baitball Blogger]

46. +1

[dumbcat]

61. Not true. Officers are not trained to take orders above all else

See the discussion of Officer's Vs Enlisted Oaths starting at post 23 above.

The Officer's Oath makes no mention of following orders.

[The Blue Flower]

68. I was married to a USMC officer

Yes, there are internal politics involved in making sure you get the promotion. I saw it.

[dumbcat]

80. Which does not negate what I said.

nt

[yaesu]

55. he is the kind of office that would stand by and let the My Lai massacre happen

I have no respect for ilk like that.

[rufus dog]

56. The group dynamics of being a republican are the root cause of most current issues

It is a mindset not typical in most liberals. The my Country wrong or right bullshit is actually my Party wrong or right.

They are so concerned about what others may think that they can’t reach logical conclusions. No different from the dynamics of the OJ jury.

[TheRealNorth]

58. He appears to be putting party before country

Just because you wore the uniform does not mean you are incapable of wrong doing.

I mean, Benedict Arnold was a military man also

[gibraltar72]

59. Who knew Seals were related to Weasels??

[Nasruddin]

63. Heinleins razor problem

My instinct from seeing his body language & the way he responded to both sides is that he is a corrupt team player and just another crook. He seemed unable to account for some contradictions in his actions.

It would be better to apply the razor and not ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity- he doesn’t know this and he has no opinion on that - he’s not up to the job.

Either way he’s got to go. If he’s as ignorant and incapable as he seems to be he’s actually a menace to the country in this role.

I have no opinion about his military service. I haven’t seen any ex military walk on water so my limited experience suggests they are ordinary human beings.

[SunSeeker]

65. He disgraced himself. Just pathetic. nt

[lark]

78. I constantly fight that on this board.

So many say, well the military will protect us if drumpf goes rouge, loses the election and orders the military to protect him or imprison the real winners. They have a very romanticized version of th military that doesn't fit with their actual actions. 1 - Mos militry are repugs so reflexively support rw repug presidents. 1 - military promotion is totally dependent on following orders - no matter what. Military people ae not trained to think through orders and only obey legal ones, hell no, they are taught jump when it's ordered. I have asked many times for examples of military supporting the law over the presiden and so far no one has given me even one. I've asked for this numerous times with no examples given - not once. It doesn't happen. Military does do coups, but that's putting themselves in charge, not putting the real winner of an election in charge and not at all the same thing. If we have to rely on the military to protect the legitimate government, the USA will not be a democracy because they will side with orange traitor tot.

[onetexan]

83. This was Colin Powell's problem when he was part of Dubya's administration - a YES MAN

[old guy]

84. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

[subana]

85. anyone who is a republican already has a problem!

because they tend to support their party & people in their party over their country! Plus he was also very new in that job so he was probably intimidated by not being there very long.

I was never in the military but I believe there is a guideline in the military that if you are commanded to do something & you believe it is wrong, you have an obligation not to follow that order.

[Baitball Blogger]

88. It's times like this that I miss John McCain.

His concept of honor and integrity is the same as my father's. And the politics of both men couldn't be further apart.

[subana]

94. true

he was a republican but he could still speak like a human, not like a GOP robot the way many of them do!

[Mustellus]

86. NO. THE MILITARY TAKE NO SUCH OATH !!!!!

We vow to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Of course, since we now have an "all volunteer" military, I suspect that military life is very attractive to the 20% of people who psychologists say would be happier living in a dictatorship.

[FakeNoose]

87. Michael Flynn - where did his honor go?

I'm tired of giving these military guys the benefit of the doubt. They've got a brain, a soul, a conscience, like everyone else does. If they can't make the right, lawful decision when it really matters, they should just retire and go fishing somewhere.

[bucolic_frolic]

91. Authoritarian organizations are rigid

They don't learn to think outside the box, they follow orders, and seek orders from higher-ups. No criticism, and no surprise. Just a description of behavior.

[Jim__]

92. Maguire had an obligation to at least inform the Congress that the complaint existed.

Whether or not it was a valid complaint was, by statute, the IG's decision. He made it. The complaint was legitimate. Maguire did not actually have a role to play in making that decision. But, then, having inserted himself into the process, he clearly had an obligation to inform Congress that a complaint that he wasn't forwarding existed. Asking Trump or any of his flunkies to decide is clearly insufficient.

[trc]

93. All military members swear an oath to the Constitution, not the president

This was the same issue I had with Olliver North...he lied to protect the president while ignoring his constitutional duty to protect and defend against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. Of course this type of republican sees democrats as enemies of the state and therefor believe they are correct in their behavior.

[Duppers]

107. Best explanation. Thanks.

Democrats are not the enemy of the State, only the enemy of dictatorships.

[Perseus]

98. I think its simpler than that

The guy has no balls, and if he thought he saved his integrity with today's performance he is wrong. Today's performance showed that he will not do anything to contradict the creature or Barr, that his loyalty is with those two and not with the country.

Someone said that "everything trump touches turns to crap", a stellar Navy career seems to have turned to crap today.

[Baitball Blogger]

99. It's looking worse for him as the facts keep coming in.

Sounds like Trump had a system of burying official records of his conversations. When Maguire yielded to the claim of executive privilege, he became a prima facie example of how Trump has been getting away with it.

[Skittles]

104. anyone with critical thinking skills should know Trump did not "win" the election

Trump is a dishonorable, pussy grabbing con man - no one should EVER have felt loyalty to him unless they are of the same character

[NCLefty]

106. He didn't follow the law and he went to the perpetrator. That's all I know about him.

I have to now question how "prestigious" his career even was before this.

[Duppers]

108. Excellent! K&R

Thank you!