Could the Marines take indictments from the Pentagon?

a reply to: silo13

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: silo13

The Marines cleaning up the swamp and all the high level criminals - reporting only to THE MAN - Trump!

Don't think it'd be that great at all. And not for political reasons.

Pretty sure the DOJ would need to be involved at some point. Using the military to issue indictments only answerable to a sitting president is a pretty scary notion to be honest.

And wouldn't it be a breach of separation of powers (or debatable at the least)?

a reply to: projectvxn

I am not saying that I believe it, I am just trying to put more info out there.


JT

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Greenblaz

Bahaha! Whoever wrote that reads ATS pretty closely. Two of those "updates" are word for word what I wrote yesterday here on ATS.

I love how that article contacted “many McLean residents” and yet...

Still not one damn thing on social media.

So weird.



ETA - to the OP, using Marines to serve indictments would be about as blatant a violation of Posse Comitatus as it gets.

Hubby's gaming group is active & former military only, hubby's logged in & passed this one along.

Suffice it to say none of them can believe anyone bought this hoax, the logistics of an all-bases lockdown makes it impossible. Man, they are having a hell of a laugh at pliable peoples' expense today.

a reply to: silo13

It would be a violation of Posse Comitatus. And would be all over the news and net.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes, it would be. There'd be no hiding it.

Wouldn't it be freakin' GREAT if this is true!

No it wouldn’t.

Why is that that people always want the military to clean everything up for them?

Liberals want the military to take out trump, conservatives wanted us to stop following Obama’s orders, so forth and so on.

Not only do we have to shoulder the responsibilities of war, but somehow also serve as political cureall for the instant gratification crowd.

a reply to: projectvxn

Yea. It’s embarrassing how quickly people are willing to turn their government into a dictatorship.

So long as it’s their guy doing the dictating.

a reply to: silo13

Only the guilty need be worried !!

a reply to: silo13

The Marines cleaning up the swamp and all the high level criminals - reporting only to THE MAN - Trump!

Two words for you...

Praetorian Guard.

Historically speaking? Not a great idea... They could turn on you as quickly as they served you.

CIA Headquarters in Langley Reportedly on Lockdown - Breitbart

www.breitbart.com/.../cia-headquarters-in-langley...lockdown





According to accounts from a McLean, Virginia resident, the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia are on lockdown for an unknown reason.
.



US Marines Storm the CIA Headquarters in Langley ~ Intel

inteldinarchronicles.blogspot.com/2017/11/expeditionary...





Nov 18, 2017 · Dinar Chronicles is now allowing viewers to guest post and respond to articles. If you wish to respond or speak your mind and write a post/article or about ...
.



Marine Expeditionary Unit Storms the CIA Headquarters in ...

operationdisclosure.blogspot.com/2017/11/...storms-cia.html





Nov 18, 2017 · Marine Expeditionary Unit Storms the CIA Headquarters in Langley. Reports: US Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) Lands at Langley! 2200 Marines! Source

a reply to: silo13

I would think, if true, this would be highly illegal to do.

And Trump would have to be impeached.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction, and was subsequently updated in 1956 and 1981.

This does not apply to state national guards under state authority and direction of law enforcement.

a reply to: grey580

Thanks for the info - I don't pretend to know the law as well as others.

I appreciate the link too.

I'm just sorry he (Trump) can't do it.

I don't see how anyone is ever going to get indicted without some big guns.

a reply to: visitedbythem

For crying out loud its fake

You just linked 2 of the sites that were debunked already, as proof.

How gullible are people lol

a reply to: silo13

I'm just sorry he (Trump) can't do it.

I am not sorry that a sitting president cant just send the military to arrest or deal with citizens or political rivals he doesnt like.

Do you want to become Africa? Because this is how you become Africa.

Some foresight is needed here.

a reply to: silo13

1) there is a Posse Commitatus Forum where this should be posted - I would question your motives using the WW3 forum

2) you realize that if this were actually happening ie there were actual indictments to serve in CIA/Deep State or whatever all the DOJ would have to do is....

www.federalrulesofcriminalprocedure.org...

Rule 4. Arrest Warrant or Summons on a Complaint

(a) Issuance. If the complaint or one or more affidavits filed with the complaint establish probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the judge must issue an arrest warrant to an officer authorized to execute it. At the request of an attorney for the government, the judge must issue a summons, instead of a warrant, to a person authorized to serve it. A judge may issue more than one warrant or summons on the same complaint. If an individual defendant fails to appear in response to a summons, a judge may, and upon request of an attorney for the government must, issue a warrant. If an organizational defendant fails to appear in response to a summons, a judge may take any action authorized by United States law.

(b) Form. (1) Warrant. A warrant must: (A) contain the defendant’s name or, if it is unknown, a name or description by which the defendant can be identified with reasonable certainty; (B) describe the offense charged in the complaint; (C) command that the defendant be arrested and brought without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge or, if none is reasonably available, before a state or local judicial officer; and (D) be signed by a judge. (2) Summons. A summons must be in the same form as a warrant except that it must require the defendant to appear before a magistrate judge at a stated time and place. (c) Execution or Service, and Return. (1) By Whom. Only a marshal or other authorized officer may execute a warrant. Any person authorized to serve a summons in a federal civil action may serve a summons. (2) Location. A warrant may be executed, or a summons served, within the jurisdiction of the United States or anywhere else a federal statute authorizes an arrest. A summons to an organization under Rule 4(c)(3)(D) may also be served at a place not within a judicial district of the United States. (3) Manner. (A) A warrant is executed by arresting the defendant. Upon arrest, an officer possessing the original or a duplicate original warrant must show it to the defendant. If the officer does not possess the warrant, the officer must inform the defendant of the warrant’s existence and of the offense charged and, at the defendant’s request, must show the original or a duplicate original warrant to the defendant as soon as possible. (B) A summons is served on an individual defendant: (i) by delivering a copy to the defendant personally; or (ii) by leaving a copy at the defendant’s residence or usual place of abode with a person of suitable age and discretion residing at that location and by mailing a copy to the defendant’s last known address.

(C) A summons is served on an organization in a judicial district of the United States by delivering a copy to an officer, to a managing or general agent, or to another agent appointed or legally authorized to receive service of process. If the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires, a copy must also be mailed to the organization.

a reply to: Zaphod58
You responded to my post, for which I thank you. Unfortunately, without much content. So I felt it fitting to put it out here again.

I wrote yesterday, that it would not be a violation since there exist many exceptions .... and a president wanting to execute such a feat would find ample support in the US code (ex 22 USC ). And for a more light hearted casus belli: "A poppy is also a flower. A bit akin to Sulla's and Ceasar's crossing of the Rubicon. And against the backdrop of the latter, there seem to be some analogies there.

In light of the fact that operational security is paramount in such endeavors, how many pair of boots would be needed to execute such a feat? 50, 100, 200? Would it be politically sane to do such? Personally, I find the OBL killing to be quite illuminating. OBL Cover story

a reply to: silo13

What I find troubling and weird is that somehow DOJ will have to serve the Indictments as any casual google search will show.

en.wikipedia.org...

The 2017 Special Counsel investigation is an ongoing investigation in the United States led by former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel under supervision of the United States Department of Justice.

Why do people believe that somehow the Marines will be needed to serve the indictments?

It is weird in that somehow they trust that Mueller will have indictments and yet he hasn't the resources or power to serve them. Once you start thinking like that you would be thinking that Muellers own team is compromised; if thats the case then the value of the indictments are thrown into question as well.

Mental gymnastics!!!


Are they subconsciously projecting that they want the Military out on the streets ie Martial Law and all that entails?

a reply to: visitedbythem

And all of them amazingly go back to Hal Turner.