Why federal agents (like ICE) have beyond qualified immunity and how to fix it.

[Brian4Liberty]

I do indeed have something bad to say about mealy-mouthed weasel hypocrites who say "the right thing" when it conveniently happens to suit their purposes

Those Democrat politicians are honest and upright, with no hidden agendas.

"Their purposes" is as always an interesting question in DC. Who is driving the agenda, and for what purpose?

------

"I did a quick 10 min search on "the former JAGs working group" and they are part of GAP (The government accountability project). And the entire quackmire is funded by groups like the Rockefeller family fund and the Open society foundation. imagine that? this entire shitshow was coreographed and scripted."



The Sedition 6: All Roads Lead to Ron Conway

If you are wondering why we suddenly have U.S. Senators encouraging U.S. military service members to engage in a quasi-military coup, please meet Ron Conway, and follow the money.

Ron Conway is a billionaire and Silicon Valley legend, known in some circles as the “Godfather of Silicon Valley." The founder of the investment fund SV Angel, he has made himself rich with prescient, early investments in such tech titans as Google, airbnb, Facebook, Coinbase, OpenAI, DoorDash, Pinterest—the list goes on and on.

Basically, Conway is the super rich tech mogul you never heard of, and unlike so many of his Silicon Valley peers who swing libertarian, Conway is a rabid Leftist, and uses his riches as leverage for Leftist causes. Here is a link that gives you a sense of the man’s political predilections:
https://www.followthecrypto.org/individuals/ron-conway

Which brings us to the Sedition 6. In addition to Conway’s generalized contribution to the Democrat Party at the state and federal level, and his contributions to Leftist PACs, and his generalized massive influence behind the scenes, Conway is a political contributor to the two senatorial (and most vocal) members of the Sedition 6, Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin. See below (from OpenSecrets):
...
There is clearly a financial connection between Kelly and Conway that pre-dates Kelly’s election to the Senate. Conway is a true behind-the-scenes Leftist power broker. Before Conway went public with his visceral opposition to National Guard deployments, Kelly was generally non-committal as to the importance and legality of such deployments. After Conway’s blistering attack on Salesforce, Kelly suddenly became so opposed to National Guard deployments that he began calling for a sort of limited military coup.

 

[jmdrake]

Oh yes, there is a "Seditious Six".

If Trump is good at anything, it's at hyperbolic labels. Your reaction to that label is proof enough.

Just ask "little Marco Rubio". Slotkin will be thanking Trump at some point...

Being called "little" doesn't get you tried for treason.

 

[jmdrake]

Those Democrat politicians are honest and upright, with no hidden agendas.

"Their purposes" is as always an interesting question in DC. Who is driving the agenda, and for what purpose?

------

"I did a quick 10 min search on "the former JAGs working group" and they are part of GAP (The government accountability project). And the entire quackmire is funded by groups like the Rockefeller family fund and the Open society foundation. imagine that? this entire shitshow was coreographed and scripted."

Your Logical Fallacy Is:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

ad hominem​

You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.​

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.

I understand now why Donald Trump said this:



You're no different from the Obamabots I used to argue with on Facebook. "You don't like Obama because you're a Republican / Trump supporter." Neither of those things have ever been true. I didn't like Obama targetting an American citizen just because he was on a "terrorism" list. But at least there was an argument to be made that Anwar Al Awlaki was loosely affiliated with a group that Congress specifically gave authorization for the use of force against. Now Trump is murdering people just because his administration has designated them "terrorists" without any actual act of war against the U.S. Trump supporters will argue "But drugs kill people." So do cigarettes. Considering that Trump designated Antifa as terrorists, what's to stop drown strikes against SUVs headed to or leaving a protest?

And spare me the "I'm just calling out the hypocrisy on both sides" argument. This isn't about right versus left anymore. It's about right versus wrong. Rand Paul has stood up against this and so has Thomas Massie and they did it without the "Well we can't trust the dems" equivocation.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Your Logical Fallacy Is:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

ad hominem​

You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.​

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.

I understand now why Donald Trump said this:



You're no different from the Obamabots I used to argue with on Facebook. "You don't like Obama because you're a Republican / Trump supporter." Neither of those things have ever been true. I didn't like Obama targetting an American citizen just because he was on a "terrorism" list. But at least there was an argument to be made that Anwar Al Awlaki was loosely affiliated with a group that Congress specifically gave authorization for the use of force against. Now Trump is murdering people just because his administration has designated them "terrorists" without any actual act of war against the U.S. Trump supporters will argue "But drugs kill people." So do cigarettes. Considering that Trump designated Antifa as terrorists, what's to stop drown strikes against SUVs headed to or leaving a protest?

And spare me the "I'm just calling out the hypocrisy on both sides" argument. This isn't about right versus left anymore. It's about right versus wrong. Rand Paul has stood up against this and so has Thomas Massie and they did it without the "Well we can't trust the dems" equivocation.

Calling out puppet masters and puppets is an ad hominem attack now? Ok...

And trying to undermine their argument? The one that I somewhat agree with?

You lack of comprehension may be an indicator of early onset dementia.

The attacks on the boats are lawless. But I am not going to ally myself with people like the Seditious Six who just now magically decided to have a problem with lawless government, after being told to do so by their billionaire masters.

 

[jmdrake]

Calling out puppet masters and puppets is an ad hominem attack now? Ok...

And trying to undermine their argument? The one that I somewhat agree with?

You lack of comprehension may be an indicator of early onset dementia.

More ad hominem. And dishonest to boot. There is nothing seditious about saying that troops shouldn't obey illegal orders. Hell, Pete Hegseth himself said it.

The attacks on the boats are lawless. But I am not going to ally myself with people like the Seditious Six who just now magically decided to have a problem with lawless government, after being told to do so by their billionaire masters.

More dishonesty. It's not "allying" with Democrats to simply not lie and call telling the truth sedition. Obama's strikes, as bad as they were, at least had the fig leaf of being back by Congressional authorization namely the AUMF. I think the AUMF should be repealed but it hasn't. I Trump killed the president of Syria when he came to visit that at least would be covered by the AUMF. What Trump is doing is far beyond that and it's dishonest of you to pretend that it isn't. The Trump defenders argument, and I've seen plenty making it, is that whoever the SOS Marco Rubio declares to be a terrorist can now be killed without any other jusification. Anwar Al Awlaki was suppoedly connected to Al Qaeda. Now "ANTIFA" has been declared by the Trump adminstration as a terrorist organization meaning protestors who are now being dragged of into vans could be hit with drone strikes. You can't just say "Well bad things happened in the past and person X didn't speak out so now that things have gotten MEASUREABLY worse I'm going to call out person X." The "puppet masters" are the ones controlling Trump. The few times Trump does actually does something good, which is EXTREMELY rare, I just give him credit for it and move on. I don't try to find some angle of attack to distract from what's really happening. My comprehension is fine. Your honesty is not.

 

[jmdrake]

These two teens have more courage than 99% of American adults.

 

[jmdrake]

So do I. That was my point.



As I previously stated, I don't think the so-called "Seditious 6", et al. really give a damn about "unlawful orders" - except when they can sugest or claim that such orders are coming from Republicans. And if prompted to do so, I would (with almost no exceptions but Thomas Massie and Rand Paul, or the like) say exactly the same thing with regard to Republicans opportunistically whining and bitching and pissing and moaning about "unlawful orders" from Democrats.

Funny that you mentioned Rand Paul. Today I saw a Trumpbot on X attacking Rand for siding with Obama on a drone strike that accidentally killed a couple of American hostages.



The original article?

https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/27/politics/rand-paul-drone-obama

I agree with Rand. What the Trump adminsitration has done, targetting boat wreckage with survivors clinging to it based on ZERO congressional authorization, is an order of magnitude different from attacking terrorists with justification from the GWOT AUMF and accidentally killing someone via collaterol damage. It would be better if we weren't doing any of this, but there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. Obama crossed a line that shouldn't be crossed by killing a U.S. citizen with a drone strike. Trump crossed a line that should be crossed by conflating what should be regular crime prevention and drug interdiction with terrorism.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Funny that you mentioned Rand Paul. [...]

I didn't mention Rand by coincidental happenstance. I expressly cited him and Thomas Massie as examples of the much-too-rate non-hypocritical politicians we have who reliably assert and uphold principles regardless of partisan interests or agendas.

I trust Rand and Massie to consistently call out and oppose the bullshit of both Democrats and Republicans..[1]

I do not trust the so-called "Seditious 6" to do the same. [2]

Obama crossed a line that shouldn't be crossed by killing a U.S. citizen with a drone strike. Trump crossed a line that should [not] be crossed by conflating what should be regular crime prevention and drug interdiction with terrorism.

I agree. And Obama's bullshit helped greased the skids for Trump's bullshit. It's all part of the escalating "progression of tyranny" I described in this post.



.[1] And the Republicans who hate and oppose Rand and Massie trust them to do it, too. That is, after all, the reason why they hate and oppose them so much in the first place.

[2] They might do it occasionally, but not consistently - and even then, almost only when it happens to suit their "side".

 

[jmdrake]

I didn't mention Rand by coincidental happenstance. I expressly cited him and Thomas Massie as examples of the much-too-rate non-hypocritical politicians we have who reliably assert and uphold principles regardless of partisan interests or agendas.

I trust Rand and Massie to consistently call out and oppose the bullshit of both Democrats and Republicans..[1]

I do not trust the so-called "Seditious 6" to do the same. [2]

Right now, rather than attacking the "seditious 6" (BS label since what they are doing is NOT sedition), Rand Paul is cosponding an resolution WITH CHUCK SCHUMER AND ADAM SCHIFF calling for an end to what Trump is doing in Venezuela. So rather than attacking those Rand Paul is, for the time being, allying himself with, I'm attacking the wronghead policy.

 

[jmdrake]

 

[jmdrake]

 

[Occam's Banana]

Right now, rather than attacking the "seditious 6" (BS label since what they are doing is NOT sedition), Rand Paul is cosponding an resolution WITH CHUCK SCHUMER AND ADAM SCHIFF calling for an end to what Trump is doing in Venezuela. So rather than attacking those Rand Paul is, for the time being, allying himself with, I'm attacking the wronghead policy.

Okay.

Why are you yelling at me about it?

 

[jmdrake]

Okay.

Why are you yelling at me about it?

Sorry. You just seem hard of hearing.

How exactly are you "trusting Rand Paul" when you literally on the opposite side of him on this "seditious 6" issue?

https://www.whas11.com/article/news/local/trump-rhetoric-rand-paul-democrat-lawmakers-urge-troops-to-disobey-unlawful-orders/417-c5e7856c-33c0-46d6-afeb-a5a492c04b78

Sen. Rand Paul calls Trump rhetoric targeting Democratic lawmakers 'reckless'​

The Kentucky senator says the president's rhetoric isn't exactly helping the country heal wounds.


Author: CJ Daniels
Published: 9:44 PM EST November 23, 2025
Updated: 9:44 PM EST November 23, 2025
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — President Trump took to his Truth Social platform renewing his call for the arrests of a group of Democratic lawmakers who urged troops to disobey unlawful orders that may be issued by his administration.

Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, and Reps. Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander and Chrissy Houlahan, who previously served in the military or intelligence community, posted a 90-second video, telling members of the U.S. Military they can refuse unlawful orders.

In response, Trump called the post “seditious behavior, punishable by death.”
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul appeared on CBS Face The Nation on Sunday saying the president’s rhetoric could be problematic.
"If you take at face value, the idea that calling your opponent’s traitors and then specifically saying that it warrants the death penalty is reckless, inappropriate, irresponsible – there are a number of other ways to describe it, but it's not something that is helping the country heal wounds. I think it stirs things up and really I think we can do better," he said.
The six lawmakers issued a statement following Trump’s comments saying they would “not be intimidated.”

 

[Occam's Banana]

Sorry. You just seem hard of hearing.

How exactly are you "trusting Rand Paul" when you literally on the opposite side of him on this "seditious 6" issue?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

How am I "literally on the opposite side of [Rand] on this 'seditious 6' issue"?

[bold emphasis added:]

I agree. It is not seditious - and I have never said (or even implied) that it is.

In fact, that is precisely why I previously referred to [bold emphasis added]

[...] the so-called "Seditious 6" [...]

- as in, "so-called - but not actually".

They're not being seditious. [...]

 

[jmdrake]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

How am I "literally on the opposite side of [Rand] on this 'seditious 6' issue"?

[bold emphasis added:]

Why even use the term? Why treat them as enemies at a time when Rand needs every ally he can possibly get? The argument that you're making that these senators are only doing this to be anti Trump is the same EXACT same argument that some in MAGA are making against Rand. I gave you the link. Rand sees this as a particularly bad escalation that needs to be called out. And Trump and Hegseth signaled to the world that they were about to do some illegal stuff with their "If you don't like then get out of the military" pep talk to the generals. The most recent evidence suggests that the admiral who was over the Southern Command was forced to resign by Pete Hegseth precisely because he didn't agree with these orders. People were thinking it was because he was black but apparently it was simply because he had integrity.