candide

Well, certainly not same case as Abhisit. They did dissolve the House and organise elections. The fact that elections have been partly blocked by protesters and ultimately nullified was not their intent. They did not delay early elections, and after the first elections were nullified, they planned new elections with the EC as early as possible (July). Do you have a source about the fact the government situation was illegal in May. I don't remember this argument having been evoked for the coup. One thing is sure, Suthep's idea of a government was illegal according to the Constitution. There was nothing in the Constitution allowing it. About the nomination of a new army chief in 2010 https://www.dw.com/en/thailands-new-army-chief-takes-office/a-6066746

The courts won't agree with your analysis...

In Thailand, an elected government doesn't control the judiciary.

2006 and 2014 were bloodless because protesters were on the same side as the army. The army was not going to oppose them as they did with the red shirts. I agree with your last sentence. However, it was not Abhisit's incompetence. He was told to do it, in order to wait for the appointment of the new army chief in September. There was one red-shirt big protest in May in 2014 but they remained at the periphery and did not march into the city center.

The red shirts wanted elections because the government was not representing the will of the people (since part of the House was banned by the yellow courts). Abhisit was not chosen by voters. So it was democratic to ask for elections. When the legitimacy of a government is strongly contested for good reasons, the democratic behaviour is to organise early elections, as Yingluck did, and let the democratic vote decide. There was a particular reason for the red shirt to want early elections, and for Abhisit to reject it: the nomination of a new army chief in September. You know who was appointed, I guess (BTW, the same guy who was commanding the regiments who fired at protesters). As to the caretaker government being allegedly illegal: - you may remember that the yellow protesters blocked the first attempt at elections under the benevolent eyes of the army. So this situation has been caused by the yellow-green network itself, - if it was really illegal, the yellow courts would have removed them. The courts were looking at any ground to oust them, and they have not been able to do it. The protest coup failed (Suthep's mobs were spreading thin), the judicial coup failed (they were not able to oust the whole government), so the only way to block elections planned for July was a military coup.

Different times... - In 2010 and 2014, the army was cheered by the good people of Bangkok. However, the "good people" in Bangkok voted MF this time. Even members of the Hi-So or their children voted MF. There will be absolutely no support from the Bangkok population to a coup. It's very different from 2010 and 2014. They cannot fire at them like they did with the Issan 'buffaloes' in 2014. - remember who now commands the army forces stationed in Bangkok. It's an unpredictable.situation.

Exactly, that was the red shirts protest. So when the red shirts protest to get elections, the army fights them (and eventually kills them). And when the yellow shirts (or assimilated, PCRD) protest in order to overthrow a legally elected government and block elections, the army sides with them, and eventually make a coup.

That's what DeSantis says. Disney's financials are not bad. https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/the-walt-disney-company-reports-second-quarter-and-six-months-earnings-for-fiscal-2023/

Actually China can benefit much from a weakened Russia. It is definitely against Russia using nukes. Too much disorder for them.

That was about his oath, not about the constitution itself.

Stirring the pot..

I guess the FBI wanted to hastily make a public announcement in order to hastily influence elections.. Oh wait! July 5, 2016 Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Yet, the Durham report also confirms that the so-called Clinton's attempt was not used by the FBI. In short, it did not influence the FBI. Moreover, according to Durham: “In sum, the government's handling of the Clinton Plan intelligence may have amounted to a significant intelligence failure and a troubling instance in which confirmation bias and a tunnel-vision pursuit of investigative ends may have caused government personnel to fail to appreciate the extent to which uncorroborated reporting funded by an opposing political campaign was intended to influence rather than inform the FBI,” Durham said. “It did not, all things considered, however, amount to a provable criminal offense.” https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/joe-biden-briefed-clinton-plan-tie-trump-russia-durham-report-concludes

After Russia loses, they will also have others subjects to worry about.... China courts Central Asia as Russia falters The Kremlin’s obsession with conquering Ukraine has left a vacuum in Central Asia that China and Turkey are more than happy to fill. https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-central-asia-russia/

I am not sure numbers are so relevant. Even small nuclear countries such as France or UK, have enough missiles to destroy the 50 largest Russian cities.

Here are the funders. Do you have anything to substantiate your claim that they are "trying to destroy the US"? https://influencemap.org/funders

He's been told at least a dozen times already and will post exactly the same claim in a few hours or days.

Exactly. There nothing in the memo suggesting that it may apply to the MAL documents. The usual right-wing confusion tactic...

More explicitly: by stratospheric level, I mean something we cannot freely talk about.

Well, not sure Thailand can be compared to SK, nor the Thai generals to SK generals.

Well, apart from Burma, not military-led. And apart from China, no really successful (except about the survival of their regime).

I think the EC decision in the case against Pita will be political. If It's political, the CC can decide quickly about it One problem about MF is that, unlike PT, they have no communications channel with the stratospheric level. It's also likely that they not perceived positively there.

This is not a good sign. When the judiciary gets interested in a member of the establishment, it is often a way to pretend it is unbiased before incriminating an anti-establishment person.

Even in case you were right, it would not have much impact. None of the three criminal statutes evoked in his case requires the material to be classified.

Your last link is quite interesting. Have you noticed this? The classification system is separate from criminal penalties that Congress has imposed to protect security secrets. For example, the Espionage Act of 1917 — one of the three laws cited in the search warrant of Mar-a-Lago in Florida — is designed to protect secrets related to defense information that could harm the U.S. or aid a foreign adversary. It makes no reference to materials’ classification status, and prosecutors in an Espionage Act case do not need to prove that materials were classified but rather that they were “closely held,” and their release could damage national security. The search warrant executed in August at Mar-a-Lago cited as “probable cause” violations of relevant parts of the Presidential Records Act, which does not carry criminal penalties, as well as three provisions of criminal law: a part of the Espionage Act that deals with the mishandling of “national defense information” (18 U.S.C. § 793); a records-related obstruction statute (18 U.S.C. § 1519); and a third that deals with the mishandling of public records (18 U.S.C. § 2071). None of the three criminal statutes deal with classified material per se. Penalties differ. The obstruction-related statute carries the strongest sentence of a fine and a maximum 20 years in jail for each offense.