December 16, 2024
Hypothetically speaking of course? What steps could @realDonaldTrump take in December prior to inauguration to determine this? The following is not legal advice but simply my opinion on some legal research I have done and I post this as my First Amendment right to share my opinion and research as to what I would do if I were the president-elect during this time. All readers should seek their own legal counsel.
First of all, given that the DOD allegedly claims the drones are not a foreign threat and implies that they have no idea what is going on, given that Incoming president elect @realDonaldTrump says the drones should either be explained to the American public by the USA Government or shot down, Given that Military drone manufacturers allegedly say the drones have FAA lights and are more than likely doing surveillance for credible threats such as nuclear radiation detection... If this is the case and the CIA is behind this but not telling the DOD or the DOD is lying to the public and keeping this from the president elect, I am concerned that certain laws could be being violated and that this could appear to be a false flag event or attempted coup. Given the claims by various government agencies such as the FBI and the DOD that they imply they have no idea what or who is operating the drones off NJ and NY, as a 27 year section 1983, Bivens, and constitutional scholar, it became apparent to me that some laws could potentially be broken so I did some research. If the CIA is operating drones over U.S. territory without informing the Department of Defense (DOD) or if the DOD is concealing such activities from the public or the president-elect, the following laws and legal principles could potentially be violated and there are immediate steps that president elect @realDonaldTrump should be taking in my opinion that I would take if I were the president: Seek legal counsel for 1. Violations of Constitutional Authority: Separation of Powers and Civilian Oversight: The U.S. Constitution requires that military and intelligence operations remain under civilian oversight (e.g., the President and Congress). If the CIA or DOD is conducting unauthorized operations or withholding information from the president-elect, this would undermine the civilian chain of command and could be seen as unconstitutional. Relevant Legal Basis: Article II, Section 2: The President serves as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The 20th Amendment provides that the president-elect will assume these powers upon inauguration, but even in December a president elect is legally entitled to be informed of these things under the presidential transition act. 2. The National Security Act of 1947This law created the CIA and defined its powers, explicitly stating that: The CIA cannot conduct operations on U.S. soil without authorization or jurisdiction. Domestic operations are primarily the responsibility of the FBI, not the CIA. Unauthorized drone surveillance on U.S. soil by the CIA would violate the National Security Act of 1947, particularly if Congress has not been informed, as required by law.3. Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385)If military assets (including drones) are being used for domestic surveillance or law enforcement without explicit authorization from Congress, this could violate the Posse Comitatus Act. The law prohibits the use of military forces for civilian law enforcement purposes unless authorized by Congress or the Constitution.
HOWEVER, laws like the Patriot Act and FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) could, in certain circumstances, allow the government to conduct surveillance or other activities domestically that might appear to circumvent laws like the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385). However, their use is heavily regulated and limited to specific situations as I will break down below. 4. Federal Aviation Regulations. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates the use of drones and other aircraft in U.S. airspace. Military or intelligence agency drones must adhere to FAA requirements, including filing flight plans and operating transparently in civilian airspace. Failure to comply with FAA regulations could result in violations of federal aviation laws.5. Failure to Inform Congress – Intelligence Oversight. The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 requires the CIA to inform Congress (specifically the Intelligence Committees) of significant covert actions. If the CIA is conducting a covert operation over U.S. soil without notifying Congress, this would violate the Act.6. Violations of Presidential Transition Laws. Presidential Transition Act of 1963:If the DOD or other agencies withhold critical information from the president-elect (such as intelligence regarding national security threats), this would undermine the transparency required by the Act. This could potentially lead to claims of negligence or malfeasance.7. Misrepresentation or False Statements to Congress or the Public (18 U.S.C. § 1001)If the DOD or CIA is providing false or misleading information to Congress, the president-elect, or the public about the nature of the drones, this could violate 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which prohibits knowingly making false statements to federal officials. 8. Treason or Sedition Laws (18 U.S.C. §§ 2381-2385)If these actions are part of a deliberate attempt to undermine the authority of the president-elect or the functioning of the U.S. government, they could be construed as seditious conspiracy (§ 2384) or even treason (§ 2381) if the intent is to wage war against the United States.
9. Potential Appearance of a False Flag Event: If the drones are operated in a way intended to sow public fear or manipulate public opinion (e.g., staging a perceived foreign threat), it could be considered a false flag operation, potentially violating laws against: Terrorism (§ 2331): If the drones are used to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. Fraud and Public Corruption Laws: If designed to influence policy or mislead the public for financial or political gain. If such actions were discovered, the situation would raise serious constitutional and legal issues, including violations of laws governing transparency, oversight, and jurisdiction. Depending on the intent and scope of the operation, it could be construed as an attempt to undermine democratic processes or civilian authority. This could prompt investigations by Congress, independent counsel, or both, and potentially lead to criminal charges against individuals involved.1. Treason (18 U.S.C. § 2381)Definition of Treason: Treason involves levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. While traditionally interpreted as an act of warfare or support for an external enemy, certain types of coups—especially those involving violent or armed rebellion—could meet this definition. Relevance to a Coup: If a coup involved violent attempts to overthrow the legitimate government or remove the president-elect, it could be considered "levying war" against the United States. Key aspects: A conspiracy to attack federal institutions or officials. Attempts to seize military or government control violently. Penalty for Treason: Punishable by death or imprisonment not less than five years, along with a fine of at least $10,000 and disqualification from holding office.2. Seditious Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384)Definition of Seditious Conspiracy: Two or more people conspire to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to oppose its authority by force. Relevance to a Coup: Any coup attempt—whether involving military personnel, government officials, or private actors—fits within this definition if force or violence is involved. This law is broader than treason and applies to conspiracies that seek to disrupt the government without requiring allegiance to an enemy or actual "warfare." Penalty for Seditious Conspiracy: Punishable by up to 20 years in prison.3. Advocating Overthrow of Government (18 U.S.C. § 2385)Definition: It is illegal to advocate, teach, or distribute material encouraging the overthrow of the U.S. government by force or violence. Relevance to a Coup: If the coup involves propaganda, planning, or other efforts to encourage rebellion, this law could be invoked. It also applies to individuals or groups attempting to recruit participants for such actions. Penalty for Advocating Overthrow: Punishable by up to 20 years in prison, fines, and ineligibility for federal employment for five years. 4. Other Related Laws. Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241):If the coup involves denying the rights of the president-elect or government officials (e.g., through detention, threats, or violence), this law could apply. Insurrection (18 U.S.C. § 2383):Engaging in or inciting rebellion against U.S. authority is specifically prohibited. Penalty: up to 10 years in prison and disqualification from holding public office. Application to a Coup. A coup aimed at overthrowing the government, removing the president-elect, or interfering with the peaceful transition of power would be a direct violation of these laws. The legal classification would depend on: Intent: Was there an intent to overthrow or destroy the government or undermine its authority? Actions: Were force or violence used? Was there a conspiracy to use such measures? Scale: Was it an isolated act, or did it involve significant coordination (e.g., between military, government insiders, or private actors)?A coup could involve treason if it constitutes "levying war," but seditious conspiracy and insurrection laws would more commonly apply due to their broader scope. A coup is inherently a criminal act under U.S. law and would fall under treason, sedition, or related statutes. Its prosecution would depend on the specific circumstances, but the penalties are severe, ranging from long prison sentences to capital punishment in cases of treason. As stated above, In Conclusion: In December, If an incoming president faces a scenario where drones of unclear origin are conducting activities over U.S. territory, and there are contradictions between federal agencies (e.g., the CIA, DOD, FBI) or evidence of obfuscation by the outgoing administration, the incoming president could take various legal actions before taking office. A president-elect has limited direct authority but can use several legal and constitutional tools to address contradictions or obfuscation by federal agencies, especially if they believe the situation poses a threat to national security or public safety. Here are the actions and legal avenues available:1. Leveraging the Presidential Transition Act of 1963The President-Elect’s Right to Information:Under the Presidential Transition Act, the General Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for facilitating access to federal resources, classified briefings, and agency information for the president-elect. This includes: Intelligence briefings on national security threats. Coordination with federal agencies (DOD, CIA, FBI, etc.).If agencies are withholding critical information, the president-elect can: File a mandamus action (28 U.S.C. § 1361): This would compel federal agencies to fulfill their legal duty to provide the president-elect with necessary intelligence.2. Invoking Congressional Oversight Powers. The president-elect can work with Congressional leaders (especially from Intelligence Committees) to: Demand immediate oversight hearings into the drone activities and conflicting agency statements. Use Congressional subpoena power to compel testimony or documents from federal agencies (e.g., the DOD, CIA, FAA, or FBI).Legal Basis: The National Security Act of 1947 requires intelligence agencies to keep Congress fully informed of significant covert activities. If Congress determines agencies are violating this law, it can escalate the matter by subpoenaing agency officials or initiating contempt proceedings.3. Filing Legal Actions in Federal Court: Mandamus Action to Compel Agency Action If federal agencies refuse to disclose critical national security information, the president-elect could file a writ of mandamus in federal court. This would: Compel the agencies (DOD, CIA, etc.) to share information necessary to ensure a safe and informed transition of power. Establish a legal record of any agency's non-compliance. Lawsuit for Injunctive Relief If there is evidence that an agency is intentionally obstructing access to information or misleading the public, the president-elect could file for: A temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction to halt potentially unlawful operations (e.g., drone surveillance without disclosure) or to require immediate transparency.4. Public Transparency Laws. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests: The president-elect can request records related to the drones, FAA filings, or communications between federal agencies under the FOIA (5 U.S.C. § 552). While FOIA typically applies to the public, the president-elect’s position could expedite requests if national security is involved. Whistleblower Protection and Public Testimony: Encourage whistleblowers within agencies (e.g., DOD, CIA) to come forward under the Whistleblower Protection Act or the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which safeguard individuals who disclose agency misconduct.5. Leveraging the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)FAA Regulation Compliance: Drones operating in U.S. airspace must comply with FAA regulations, including flight plans and public disclosure of activities that could affect safety. The president-elect could pressure the FAA to investigate and publicly disclose the operators of these drones. If the FAA fails to act, the president-elect could: File a mandamus action to compel the FAA to investigate. Demand Congressional oversight of FAA compliance with drone regulations.6. Using the Media to Pressure Agencies Public Statements: The president-elect can use the media to publicly pressure agencies to disclose the purpose and operators of the drones. By highlighting inconsistencies in agency statements, the president-elect can create accountability through public scrutiny. National Security Implications: If the drones represent a credible threat (e.g., potential false flag operation or foreign surveillance), the president-elect can demand agencies clarify their position to the public.7. Invoking Existing Executive Orders Executive Orders from the Current Administration: The president-elect can demand clarity on how existing Executive Orders governing drones, national security, and covert operations are being applied. If there is evidence of agency non-compliance with Executive Orders, the president-elect could request a review through Congressional or legal channels.8. Legal and Public Challenges to Agency Credibility Challenge Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. § 706):If agency actions (e.g., drone surveillance or withholding information) are arbitrary, capricious, or outside statutory authority, the president-elect could challenge them under the APA. This could compel agencies to disclose their legal basis for the drones and clarify their operations. Obstruction of the Transition Process: If agencies are actively obstructing the president-elect’s access to information, this could be challenged as a violation of the Presidential Transition Act or potentially as obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1505).9. Appeal to the Supreme Court (If Necessary)If lower courts are unresponsive or delays threaten national security, the president-elect could appeal directly to the Supreme Court to compel federal agencies to disclose information critical to the transition and public safety. Key Statutes That May Be Invoked Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (access to intelligence and resources).National Security Act of 1947 (oversight of intelligence operations).Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (to challenge agency actions).Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (public disclosure).Mandamus Statute (28 U.S.C. § 1361) (compel agency action).The president-elect, while limited in direct authority before Inauguration Day, can leverage legal tools such as mandamus actions, injunctions, FOIA requests, and public pressure. Additionally, working with Congress to invoke oversight powers or compel agencies to disclose information is a critical path. These actions could enforce transparency and accountability, ensuring no unlawful activity or contradiction undermines the peaceful transfer of power or public safety. Again, laws like the Patriot Act and FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) could, in certain circumstances, allow the government to conduct surveillance or other activities domestically that might appear to circumvent laws like the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385). However, their use is heavily regulated and limited to specific situations. Here's how these laws interact and might potentially conflict:1. The Patriot Act. The USA PATRIOT Act (2001) expanded the government's authority to conduct surveillance, investigate, and prevent terrorist activities. Key provisions that could be relevant: Expanded Surveillance Powers. Section 215 (Business Records Provision):Allows the government to obtain records from third parties (e.g., phone companies, internet providers) if deemed relevant to a terrorism investigation. Could justify surveillance activities (including drones) within the U.S. to detect potential threats, such as nuclear or radiological dangers. Section 206 (Roving Wiretaps):Permits tracking of communication devices used by individuals suspected of terrorism. This could extend to drone operations if tied to counter-terrorism efforts. Impact on Posse Comitatus: Circumventing Domestic Use Limitations: The Patriot Act allows federal agencies (FBI, CIA, DHS) to engage in domestic intelligence and surveillance under the guise of counter-terrorism. While it does not grant military personnel law enforcement powers, it can blur the lines between military and civilian roles. For example: DOD personnel might support surveillance operations conducted by DHS or the FBI without explicitly violating the Posse Comitatus Act.2. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)FISA governs how federal agencies conduct surveillance of foreign agents, including within U.S. borders. Key provisions that could be relevant: FISA Warrants: Section 702 (Targeting Non-U.S. Persons):Allows warrantless surveillance of foreign targets outside the U.S., but data can be collected domestically if communications pass through U.S.-based systems. If the drones are surveilling for foreign threats (e.g., nuclear materials smuggled by foreign agents), the government could argue this falls under FISA's jurisdiction. FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court):Agencies like the NSA or FBI must seek secret court approval for surveillance of U.S. persons suspected of working with foreign agents. This court operates in secrecy, and its decisions are rarely disclosed, which could shield drone activities from public scrutiny. Impact on Posse Comitatus: Blurring Military and Intelligence Operations: FISA allows intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA) to gather data domestically for foreign-related threats. If military resources (e.g., drones) are used to assist this process, it may sidestep Posse Comitatus' prohibition on using the military for domestic law enforcement.3. Posse Comitatus Act Limitations: The Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) prohibits the use of federal military forces in civilian law enforcement activities unless authorized by Congress or the Constitution. Circumvention Through Intelligence Laws: Military Support for Civilian Agencies: The Patriot Act and FISA allow civilian agencies like DHS, FBI, or CIA to request military assistance (e.g., drones or surveillance capabilities) without formally deploying military personnel for law enforcement. Example: Military drones could be operated by civilian contractors or intelligence agencies to skirt Posse Comitatus restrictions. Military's Role in National Security Threats: If drones are used for detecting nuclear materials or other foreign threats, the government could justify their use under national defense powers, arguing this falls outside the Posse Comitatus Act's scope.4. Potential for Abuse: Both the Patriot Act and FISA have been criticized for overreach, particularly for enabling: Mass Surveillance: Collection of data on U.S. citizens not directly tied to foreign or terrorist threats. Secrecy: Use of classified operations and courts (e.g., FISA Court) to shield activities from public and Congressional oversight. Mission Creep: Intelligence and military tools designed for counter-terrorism being repurposed for broader surveillance or law enforcement goals. If military or intelligence drones are conducting surveillance without proper oversight or transparency, it could raise questions about: Legitimacy: Are the operations authorized under the Patriot Act or FISA? Accountability: Is there Congressional oversight of these activities? Violations: Are these activities infringing on civil liberties or circumventing Posse Comitatus?5. Is This a Violation? Legality: If the drone activities are part of an authorized intelligence operation (e.g., detecting nuclear threats under FISA), they might not violate Posse Comitatus. However, if drones are used for general surveillance or domestic law enforcement, it could breach Posse Comitatus unless specifically authorized by Congress. Appearance of Circumvention: If agencies like the CIA, FBI, or DHS collaborate with the military in ways that obscure military involvement, it could appear to the public as a circumvention of Posse Comitatus.6. Remedies Available to the President-Elect: Demand Oversight: The president-elect can pressure Congress to investigate whether FISA or Patriot Act powers are being misused. Congressional committees (e.g., Intelligence or Armed Services) could subpoena documents and hold hearings. Challenge in Court: If there is evidence of unlawful circumvention, the president-elect could seek judicial review, particularly regarding whether military involvement violates statutory or constitutional provisions. Public Transparency: The president-elect could demand declassification of relevant drone activity information to clarify whether the operations are lawful or represent government overreach.
Conclusion: I personally find it hard to believe that the CIA would not secure the nuclear weapons that UKRAIN gave up and that if there were any warheads or suitcase nukes that the CIA likely has them in their possession. The Patriot Act and FISA could potentially allow the CIA or other government agencies to justify drone activities that might otherwise seem to circumvent laws like the Posse Comitatus Act, particularly under the guise of counter-terrorism or foreign intelligence gathering. This would allow the CIA and those who oppose @realDonaldTrump to create the appearance of a terrorism threat with the use of these drones and then secretly detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil, blame it all on Iran or another country or terrorists, in an attempt to keep the current administration in power via marshal law. However, Using The Patriot Act and FISA to carry out these drone activities must adhere to strict oversight mechanisms. If there is evidence of abuse or overreach, the president-elect could seek remedies through Congress, the courts, or public transparency efforts to ensure accountability. Just my 1st amendment opinion and research I have done. Due to the reprehensible reputation of the CIA I would Seek Legal advice as to whether the patriot act and the FISA laws are being used and abused in order to use these drones to facilitate a coup or FALSE FLAG EVENT!