FWIW, there is no leader in the military - Officer or NCO - who would allow a soldier to shoot at an individual throwing a rock. They know that violates the rules of engagement, the law of land warfare & the values those in the military believe. It would be an unlawful order.
Referring to the U.S. military, obviously, since it’s a different story in Israel, but I kinda suspect that Hertling’s assessment is accurate. (Hertling, unlike me, has served.) Clearly I have more respect for our military than our president* does.
…also, this.
We had rocks thrown at us all the time in Afghanistan. Responding with lethal force is a fucking war crime. https://t.co/CqKYWfy3so
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
Great answer. The judges would also have accepted "lawsuits are coming" or "You know nothing, Donald Trump", though of course the latter is monstrously unfair to Jon Snow. A wild card answer would be
Ramsay Bolton fed to his dogs
, but the Secret Service might need to be consulted on its acceptability in context.
... also, today's entry in "hoist with his own petard" and "for every action, there is an equal and opposite Trump tweet":
The judge in the emoluments clause case cited this tweet from @realDonaldTrump to reject Trump's argument that any lawsuit would impose undue burdens on the presidency. In this tweet, Trump actually invited a lawsuit from one of his enemies! He's got time, it seems. https://t.co/RTQbWUhahr
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
This is potentially bad for one reason specifically: the Mueller investigation. Sessions' recusal was the main factor protecting it. There's no indication Whitaker will protect it, and the current signs suggest quite the opposite, in fact.
However, the odds Mueller hasn't already prepared for this eventuality are quite low. Odds are that he's already shared everything he knows with the NY AG and other sources.
Regardless, much as I despise the Racist Keebler Elf, I'm not sure this is a good thing. Can't imagine the NY AG's office having as much power to flip witnesses as the FBI. Same deal with the House. We should be prepared to get out on the streets if anything happens to Mueller, even us introverts.
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
My hope is that it doesn't matter and that we will be hearing from the investigation soon. Now that midterms are over there's no way to be accused of trying to sway elections and they can get right down to the business of jailing corrupt people in the turning door white house.
I feel like we are slowly but steadily headed to the day where this will be uttered in court, "I most popular vote elected president Donald Trump, it's true, it's been proven, fake votes for Hillary, I got the most, with the highest approval score of any president of all time, declare that Mr. Donald J. Trump is enumerated and pardoned from any crimes that they, the fake media, claims he has committed, which aren't true, there was no collusion, I president do decree. Signed President Trump *fake signing hand motion* *smug smile*"
And we get to see if that is taken seriously or laughed out of the court room.
Which is to say that some of my final hopes of a reasonable government rests on this investigation and just how accountable our government officials are to things like the people and laws in general, or if we are basically just electing strange monarchs and their weird families.
Adam Silverman’s (and Asha Rangappa’s) thoughts on Whitaker and Cheryl Rofer’s (and David Roberts’) thoughts on Trump’s narcissism. Both worth reading in full, but the short version of Silverman’s is that the intelligence community is likely to react to any attempts to put constraints on their investigation with selective leaks of information that serve as warning shots across the bow, and of Rofer’s is that that Trump may have fired Sessions more out of narcissistic pettiness than anything else, which would mean that it might (might) be awhile longer before he seriously contemplates firing Mueller.
We should still be prepared to get out on the street if anything happens, but it might not happen immediately. A lot of unknown variables still.
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
I think a lot of Derp Fuhrer's goal was to change the subject away from the election. He can't stand people discussing that he lost, why he lost, how bad he lost etc.
In any case I assume Mueller has some plan for making sure whatever evidence he has continues to be in play even if his investigation shuts down. If that's valid, shutting it down could well blow up in T Rump's face by making a stronger case for obstruction, yes, no?
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant