Oath Keepers are on board to fight Civil War if Trump is impeached

essentialsaltes said:

That is what Jeffress said.

What Oath Keepers said was "We ARE on the verge of a HOT civil war. Like in 1859."

Click to expand...

And I've seen at least one claim that Trump, by retweeting it, is guilty of sedition.

essentialsaltes said:

Trump irresponsibly retweeted Pastor Jeffress' irresponsible nonsense:
....If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews
@Oathkeepers is on board
Oath Keepers Retweeted Donald J. Trump
Here’s the money quote from that thread. This is the truth. This is where we are. We ARE on the verge of a HOT civil war. Like in 1859. That’s where we are. And the Right has ZERO trust or respect for anything the left is doing. We see THEM as illegitimate too.
Neither side respects or trusts the other side. Nor do Trump supporters trust the “intelligence community” or the RINOs in the Senate. Hence, they will NOT accept the results of a “successful” impeachment as legitimate. They will see it as a Deep State coup.

Click to expand...

Trump Says If There Is Another Civil War He Will Get a New Note from Podiatrist

essentialsaltes said:

That is what Jeffress said.

What Oath Keepers said was "We ARE on the verge of a HOT civil war. Like in 1859."

Click to expand...

Your post is extremely confusing then. Could you tell me which things that are not included in quotation marks are said by which people and which things you are adding of your own, if any, so I could make out what is what and who is who? From what you wrote, at least in the way it was written, I still cannot be sure that the Oathkeepers are indicating that they are ready to fight a Civil War.

Additionally, if you are the one saying that what Jeffress said is irresponsible nonsense., I happen to think he is correct in his analysis of the situation, if it is you and not someone else that is saying that what he said is irresponsible , then could you explain what it is about his comments that you consider irresponsible or nonsense. Do you think that it is nonsense to believe that removing a President that about half the electorate and the majority of the electorate outside of one state voted into office will cause a fracture ,perhaps you are saying it is nonsense because of the size of the fracture he foresaw it will cause? What is irresponsible about someone giving an honest opinion in analyzing a hypothetical situation?

keith99 said:

Did you bother to read beyond the first paragraph. Later in the post it cites them saying



That is pretty clear.

Click to expand...

Clear as mud. I read the whole thing which unbeknownst to me included quotations that were not pointed out as quotations.

Where do they say they are ready to fight that hot civil war?

So the same group of people that claim to be "all constitution, all the time" have pretty much admitted (via thinly veiled threats) that if a completely constitutional process is used to remove someone they like from office, they'll resort to force and destroy the country in the name of not letting the other side win.

...cute.

Since they've all vowed to "keep" an "oath" to defend the constitution, perhaps someone should give them a refresher course on a few key points in the document:



...I don't recall seeing any additional clauses stating "unless an anti-government wanna-be militia group that's comprised of 1/11,000th (they claim to have 30,000 members, but that number is questioned...) of the country likes the current president and gets angry about it and deems it illegitimate"

grasping the after wind said:

Your post is extremely confusing then. Could you tell me which things that are not included in quotation marks are said by which people and which things you are adding of your own, if any, so I could make out what is what and who is who? From what you wrote, at least in the way it was written, I still cannot be sure that the Oathkeepers are indicating that they are ready to fight a Civil War.

Additionally, if you are the one saying that what Jeffress said is irresponsible nonsense., I happen to think he is correct in his analysis of the situation, if it is you and not someone else that is saying that what he said is irresponsible , then could you explain what it is about his comments that you consider irresponsible or nonsense. Do you think that it is nonsense to believe that removing a President that about half the electorate and the majority of the electorate outside of one state voted into office will cause a fracture ,perhaps you are saying it is nonsense because of the size of the fracture he foresaw it will cause? What is irresponsible about someone giving an honest opinion in analyzing a hypothetical situation?

Click to expand...

Here is the Oathkeeper's Tweet and here is Pres. Trump's retweet of Pastor Jeffress Tweet.

Paulos23 said:

Maybe not that large, but yes. I can see smaller actions around the country, forcing the government to react by clamping down.

Which is what they hope for because the government clamping down could cause more unrest, and more fighters. Which could lead to the country splitting. But that is only if they are successful in their actions to require the government to make things more secure.

Click to expand...

It is still domestic terrorism.

SimplyMe said:

Here is the Oathkeeper's Tweet and here is Pres. Trump's retweet of Pastor Jeffress Tweet.

Click to expand...

Thank you.
I don't see anything in the tweets about being ready to fight a hot Civil War. I wonder allso what thread the one tweet is referring to that contains "the money quote." Just as in the OP's rendition( which I understand now was not the OP's doing) there is no way to tell which comment is from that other thread being referenced and which is from the Oathkeeper himself.

Speedwell said:

Don't they remember what happened last time?

Click to expand...

Trump is a Yankee, so he likes his odds. Plus, any big narcissistic blow hard would love to see people shedding blood for him.

essentialsaltes said:

"[Trump's] tweet is itself an independent basis for impeachment - a sitting president threatening civil war if Congress exercises its constitutionally authorized power." Harvard Law professor John Coates

Sedition

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority.

Click to expand...

Dang, the drawing up of articles of impeachment will take months due to sheer volume.

ThatRobGuy said:

So the same group of people that claim to be "all constitution, all the time" have pretty much admitted (via thinly veiled threats) that if a completely constitutional process is used to remove someone they like from office, they'll resort to force and destroy the country in the name of not letting the other side win.

...cute.

Since they've all vowed to "keep" an "oath" to defend the constitution, perhaps someone should give them a refresher course on a few key points in the document:

View attachment 264148

...I don't recall seeing any additional clauses stating "unless an anti-government wanna-be militia group that's comprised of 1/11,000th (they claim to have 30,000 members, but that number is questioned...) of the country likes the current president and gets angry about it and deems it illegitimate"

Click to expand...

It's never really about the constitution.

Aryeh Jay said:

The side that was against the President of the United States of America was thoroughly beaten and hasn’t stopped whining about the thrashing they got 154 years ago.

Click to expand...

Carpetbagging scoundrel! We’d have won if Sherman had turned left at Atlanta like he was supposed to.

Aryeh Jay said:

The President stands for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. The opposition stands with ANTIFA and the Commie Socialist Nazis that want to destroy our great nation.

Click to expand...

Well he does have the backing of the NRA (National Russia Association).

JackRT said:

That is the most severe case of multiple personality disorder that I have heard about.

Click to expand...

They don’t have a Diagnostic Code big enough for it.

ThatRobGuy said:

So the same group of people that claim to be "all constitution, all the time" have pretty much admitted (via thinly veiled threats) that if a completely constitutional process is used to remove someone they like from office, they'll resort to force and destroy the country in the name of not letting the other side win.

...cute.

Since they've all vowed to "keep" an "oath" to defend the constitution, perhaps someone should give them a refresher course on a few key points in the document:

View attachment 264148

...I don't recall seeing any additional clauses stating "unless an anti-government wanna-be militia group that's comprised of 1/11,000th (they claim to have 30,000 members, but that number is questioned...) of the country likes the current president and gets angry about it and deems it illegitimate"

Click to expand...

They don't really care about the constitution, just about the second ammendement.

keith99 said:

Did you bother to read beyond the first paragraph. Later in the post it cites them saying
That is pretty clear.

Click to expand...

What’s a cold civil war look like?

cow451 said:

What’s a cold civil war look like?

Click to expand...

Look around.

essentialsaltes said:

I stand by my statement that OathKeepers is "on board" for civil war. A further tweet:



Oh, Oath Keepers isn't calling for civil war. It's just that they'll have no choice if 'the left' continues using constitutional measures.

Click to expand...

Every warmonger finds a casus belli. They're just waiting for someone in antifa to kill one of theirs.

Nithavela said:

They don't really care about the constitution, just about the second ammendement.

Click to expand...

Probably very true for most of them...

I've long speculated that many of those types (though, claiming to have a love affair with the constitution) would gladly cast it aside in a heartbeat in exchange for a replacement document that did nothing more than establish a conservative-leaning theocracy + a provision to ensure firearm rights.