General Discussion

malthaussen

(17,308 posts)

74. That's a little different from filing an amicus brief...

Tue Apr 9, 2024, 03:53 PM

Apr 9

... what I find curious about that whole plot is that absolutely nothing was done to any of the alleged conspirators, even though the investigating committee verified most of Butler's statements.

Problem is, Smedley Butler already had a reputation as something of a loose cannon among military professionals. His politics leaned Left (he even voted for a Socialist candidate for President), and he was soon to write his scathing expose, War is a Racket, which had to step on a number of very important toes, since it presented the facts about American imperialism, especially in Central America and the Caribbean. He'd already been rejected for Commandant of the Corps for "unreliability" and retired from active duty. Which makes it very strange to me, anyway, that the conspirators would have thought to tap him for military leader of their Right coup. A more inappropriate candidate I can scarce imagine, but maybe Prescott Bush and his ilk were as tone-deaf as their descendants would be.

Anyway, Butler was presented with an offer to help overthrow the US government, and instead blew the whistle on the alleged conspirators, even if it went nowhere. That takes a considerable amount of courage (but Butler didn't lack that commodity). Signing an amicus brief to the USSC as a retired flag officer risks nothing at all. So I think the two actions are not comparable.

-- Mal

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

75 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

'Profoundly ahistorical': 4-star generals side with Jack Smith, tell Supreme Court Trump's immunity claims are 'assault' [View all] malaise Apr 8 OP

Recommend BIGLY. onecaliberal Apr 8 #1

Ditto triron Apr 8 #28

Mega Dittos! hueymahl Apr 8 #43

K&R n/t Alice Kramden Apr 8 #2

K&R nt. stage left Apr 8 #3

I just hope Leith Apr 8 #4

I hope so too. soldierant Apr 8 #40

The extreme six do not care. It's about protecting the trump party for them. madinmaryland Apr 8 #5

KnR Hekate Apr 8 #6

"" AllaN01Bear Apr 8 #7

It's sad this brain trust was compelled to write the amicus brief on the first place Brother Buzz Apr 8 #8

True malaise Apr 8 #9

If the USSC goes down the stupid path they've been offered, "sad" won't cover what remains of the nation. jaxexpat Apr 9 #65

Hugh!!!1 canetoad Apr 8 #10

Hey you - long time no see 😀 malaise Apr 8 #11

Been reading more than writing canetoad Apr 8 #12

I'll envy yours as mine heats up malaise Apr 8 #16

This veteran salutes the nineteen. Permanut Apr 8 #13

Supreme Court ejbr Apr 8 #14

This would be encouraging if Trumps' SCOTUS cared about precedent or the law Orrex Apr 8 #15

I'm betting that decorated retired admirals, generals or secretaries from branches of the aggiesal Apr 8 #17

I Never Thought I'd Live to See the Day: panfluteman Apr 8 #18

THIS malaise Apr 8 #20

It was an act of corruption for the Supreme Court to take up this case. Goodheart Apr 8 #44

⬆️ BINGO! mobeau69 Apr 9 #56

Good for the 19 Patriots (and post of the day, Malaise) Bundbuster Apr 8 #19

But, isn't trumpie..... brakester Apr 9 #66

It should never have gotten to SCROTUS. GreenWave Apr 8 #21

K&R - nt Ohio Joe Apr 8 #22

Unfortunately the Roberts Court is only concerned about ushering in Christian Nationalism - TBF Apr 8 #23

It's simple, Trump violated the Constitution by trying to overthrow the governmand and that voided his immunity. cstanleytech Apr 8 #24

He isn't immune malaise Apr 8 #25

Oh, a President has some but it's very limited as the Republicans taught us with President Clinton. cstanleytech Apr 8 #26

This is very good news. Thank you for posting! PatrickforB Apr 8 #27

Agree malaise Apr 8 #30

Speak of the devil and his stench wafts by struggle4progress Apr 8 #29

I wish he'd croak malaise Apr 8 #31

Me too bdamomma Apr 8 #35

I'd be glad for some time where he was safe behind bars or in a padded room struggle4progress Apr 8 #41

So SCOTUS doesnt know this? Kablooie Apr 8 #32

No they don't. Military generals have to explain the law to them. Irish_Dem Apr 9 #55

In memory of my father and father-in-law Dave in VA Apr 8 #33

Jen Psaki discussing now with one of them Louis Caldera malaise Apr 8 #37

That interview by Jen gab13by13 Apr 9 #57

Video malaise Apr 9 #59

Huh... they're years too late... Shipwack Apr 8 #34

My hero, Jack Smith. Passages Apr 8 #36

Love him malaise Apr 8 #38

Very kind of you. Thank you, malaise. Passages Apr 8 #39

Huge Roy Rolling Apr 8 #42

President can be impeached LiberaBlueDem Apr 8 #45

Jack Smith filed a brief with that and a lot more. usonian Apr 9 #46

Now THAT is duty and honor BaronChocula Apr 9 #47

The rest of the quote burrowowl Apr 9 #63

I always wonder if the dumbass MAGATs ever stop to realize mnmoderatedem Apr 9 #48

I hope this will be this generation's Major General Smedley Butler moment. Hekate Apr 9 #49

THIS malaise Apr 9 #53

That's a little different from filing an amicus brief... malthaussen Apr 9 #74

When your Chief Justice declares, czarjak Apr 9 #50

Agree malaise Apr 9 #54

Only half of white people, at that Hekate Apr 9 #61

They are correct. And this is pretty basic first year of law school stuff Takket Apr 9 #51

Patriotism, logic, the Constitution vs. SCOTUS-6 Federalists bucolic_frolic Apr 9 #52

K&R spanone Apr 9 #58

Caldera was excellent malaise Apr 9 #60

Do the Christofacist 6 give even one small damn about this - no. lark Apr 9 #62

So well stated by those who served this Nation in Uniform... ProudMNDemocrat Apr 9 #64

Recommended (# 270!) H2O Man Apr 9 #67

😂😂😂 for the end of the world malaise Apr 9 #70

With respect, I don't think a Smedley Butler comparison is apt... malthaussen Apr 9 #73

Valid point malaise Apr 9 #75

LOL, you should always hedge your bets, H2O Man! malthaussen Apr 9 #72

Thank you, Generals. republianmushroom Apr 9 #68

I wonder if they all will read it?? Evolve Dammit Apr 9 #69

I've heard of "mansplaining," but now I know of "generalsplaining." malthaussen Apr 9 #71