“The Constitution subjects the armed forces of the United States to civilian control and the rule of law. These limits on the military are bedrock features of our democracy and are deeply rooted in our nation’s history. From the Founding to the present day, a steadfast commitment to these principles has successfully guided us through two world wars and numerous other conflicts; provided the stability needed for our democratic republic to flourish; and ensured that the military has the capacity to defend our nation by being trained and ready to fight and win its wars.”

“Petitioner’s theory of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution is an assault on these foundational commitments. The notion of such immunity, both as a general matter, and also specifically in the context of the potential negation of election results, threatens to jeopardize our nation’s security and international leadership. Particularly in times like the present, when anti-democratic, authoritarian regimes are on the rise worldwide, such a threat is intolerable and dangerous,” says an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court signed by 19 retired generals, admirals, and secretaries of the branches, among them former CIA Director General Michael V Hayden, signed in support of Jack Smith’s case in United States v Trump ahead of arguments this month.

A much smaller group of MAGA military officers last month argued in a brief that it was silly to think that Trump could order the Navy SEALs to murder political opponents because officers would object to those orders. The fact that Trump could just pardon them aside, their contradicting what Trump lawyer argued in front of the DC Appeals Court probably isn’t the flex they think it is.