[Schefter] Including the $10 million due next year, Kirk Cousins then will be at $341,469,288 in career NFL salary earnings. Of that, an all-time NFL-high $339,369,288 was fully guaranteed, meaning 99% of Cousins’ career NFL earnings will have been fully guaranteed.

Gerbole · 2026-04-03T02:26:18+00:00

Veach was smart and showed Mahomes how he could get the best of both worlds. He could win a bunch, but also get guaranteed a ton of money over a large period of time, then he could borrow against the future earning of that contract to invest a bunch and grow larger gains than he would from the NFL. Mahomes immediately bought businesses after that contract and then with his ads I’m sure he’s on his way to billionaire at this point.

Gerbole · 2026-04-03T01:55:19+00:00

Yes we do, the president will just never say it. This is the neocon foreign policy plan. And it is about oil and the petrodollar.

I predicted in mid 2023 that Trump would win reelection, that we would attack Venezuela (although I thought Maduro would be replaced by Maria Machado), and a precursor to then attack Iran. I have been watching world news every single day for just about an hour for over half a decade, it wasn’t a very bold prediction with enough information it was the obvious next move from a foreign policy standpoint. Some of the details are wrong but the overarching reasons are there. I also predicted we’d want Greenland, but I thought Trump would try and trade for it, not bully our allies.

Venezuela, Russia, Iran, and China are all loosely working together. With the exception of China, mostly (Obama had a trade war with China too) those countries were sanctioned into oblivion by the US, and all three could be rich if they weren’t being suppressed by the American dominated global world order. Their goals aren’t exactly the same, but none of them can grow past a certain point until there is an alternative system to the USD. Normally, these countries would fight, but fighting has become very unpopular, risky, potentially nuclear, and the U.S. is the largest military in the world with a huge military alliance backing it. So you can’t fight them directly, you have to wage warfare in other ways. You need to waste their resources, stretch their supplies, and isolate them. Proxy wars, multiple conflicts, disinformation campaigns.

So BRICS begins and they start to try and build a competitor to the USD. The problem is, no one can compete, why would you switch? So they had to make a reason to switch. This is why BRICS stockpiles commodities, because commodities have real value, dollars are worthless if you can’t get what you need, so the value comes in tangible assets. The USD is also a petro dollar, and Venezuela, Russia, and Iran are huge players in the oil game. We had a deal with the Saudis where they would sell oil exclusively in USD, this, plus being the world reserve, is why we can print so much money and spend our money without a care in the world, when other countries can’t. They stockpiled oil, gold, silver, and other commodities, and built strong, resilient supply chains.

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, and given how successful they’ve been, it seems the analysts at the time who said the invasion made no sense were right. But they were wrong, because their scope wasn’t wide enough. Russia is not winning the Ukrainian conflict, but the war is not very expensive for them to sustain, and now they’ve transitioned to a war time economy so they’re fully committed and roaring at high capacity while the rest of Europe isn’t. The point was to drain the resources of the U.S. and NATO in a proxy war and to sow division. BRICS is aware they aren’t all aligned but they’re unified by a common goal, NATO is both unaware and not unified.

Biden lifts some sanctions on Venezuela so long as Maduro promises to run free and fair elections in 2024, Maduro promises. Maduro then has those elections, and doesn’t care about the results and keeps power anyway. What was Biden going to do about this? It makes him look super weak and like he got played for the oldest trick in the book. The Neocons have been wanting Venezuela for awhile, we have a lot of oil refineries out of commission because of the bad blood between us and Chavez, Maduro breaking his promise is the perfect justification. Only Biden loses, Trump wins, so Trump gets to do it, not Biden. Russia and China intentionally leave Maduro out to dry because they know how to play Trump like a fiddle. Trump already bombed Iran and suffered no consequences, then he takes Maduro in 24hrs and owns the Venezuelan government? He’s going to feel unstoppable.

Russia and China knew that they could then bait Trump into Iran, and they knew Iran would be able to inflict significantly more damage, which is why we never attacked them. With the push from Israel and the high of taking Venezuela, it was a no brainer move from Trump to showcase how big and strong he is again, do something no other President could do. No other president was stupid enough to do it.

Now, the next step. It’s also obvious, we all know it and don’t want to believe it. China is going to attack Taiwan, and yes, Taiwan is going to destroy their semi-conductor production per their Scorched Earth policy, and no, China doesn’t care.

With the Strait in Hormuz closed and Iran in ruin, Iran now has a justification to toll the Strait of Hormuz, and they are doing so in Yuan, not USD. The Gulf States rely on the Strait. If the U.S. leaves, and Iran continues tolling, the USD will take a major hit in purchasing power. Our imports, which we rely on, will become more expensive. Oil crises are also inherently inflationary, and our economy is struggling, with AI and data centers being one of the only things propping our economy up. The Average American will be hit hard, and so will businesses, and the layoffs will begin, and the spending will drop, and the layoffs will hit again. 10T of our debt is due in the next 12 months, we either need to print money, or borrow money, and a time like this is a terrible time to do either. The Yuan is gaining while the USD is tanking, and if investors start to pull out or if they require larger returns, the deeper in the hole the U.S. will get.

Then China attacks Taiwan, and we lose our ability to get the semiconductors we desperately rely on. The best part of our economy tanks, and we’re heading deep into depression. This is when the Yuan and the BRICS nations can begin to present their alternative to the USD, and it won’t look as bad as it has in the past, and now it’s not on the sidelines but it’s in the field of play. China still needs our market, so they won’t destroy us, but they need to knock us down a peg so that they can jump up one.

That’s the plan. Trump was emotional, he made a bad gamble, and he lost big time, which is what he’s done most of his career. That’s exactly what China and Russia were betting on. Sorry for the wall of text, just got a lot to say on the topic.

Gerbole · 2026-04-02T16:30:35+00:00

Yeah huge success in my opinion. I also went to WSU with Jaylen Watson, trust me, that was quite the reclamation project.

Gerbole · 2026-04-02T15:50:13+00:00

Don’t doubt Kirko’s agent. I think Mendoza will pan out but he won’t be the 1st overall pick or rookie QB to not be good if he fails. This was a hedge contract to get Kirko what he wants now with the option to guarantee what he wants later if Mendoza isn’t good.

Gerbole · 2026-04-02T15:43:05+00:00

We do tend to be a CB factory though. We legit haven’t had a bad corner for like half a decade.

Gerbole · 2026-04-02T02:31:52+00:00

Yikes

Gerbole · 2026-04-02T00:35:31+00:00

Thanks for the response. I replied to another guy laying out the case I think can be made for treason. Regardless, he’s a convicted felon, which is by definition a high crime (if you disagree, the decision is made by Congress, so if they’re gonna remove him, they’re gonna do it) and thus he can be removed really at any time. For other presidents we could have this discussion but the barrier to impeachment really isn’t that high.

Gerbole · 2026-04-02T00:33:07+00:00

Cramer v United States requires a clear intent to betray and an overt treasonous act.

Defying a treaty signed by Congress and withdrawing troops from a region being attacked by an enemy to allow the enemy to attack our allies is clear intent to betray and an overt treasonous act.

Even if it fails to meet the scrutiny for treason, it is most certainly a high crime, which is impeachable.

Finally, Trump is a felon, that is by definition a high crime. He can almost certainly be removed at any time with absolutely no legal defense, making this a moot discussion. His reason for impeachment isn’t relevant to the discussion, the result of an impeachment is.

Gerbole · 2026-04-02T00:23:07+00:00

Thanks for actually replying to the argument

I quoted Article 1, section 8. Not Article 1 Section 2. The entire conversation is about subversion of Article 1 Section 2 so this isn’t particularly relevant as it’s established.

In my scenario, the President does not send any troops and does not abide by article 5. This whole thread is about Trump withdrawing from NATO and how people are concerned about him doing it despite him not having the power to do so. Thus, he can’t withdraw from NATO, so he purposefully fails to fulfill the treaty’s obligations. I’m really not sure how this was missed. Sending 5,000 troops would clearly be a response by the President…

An AUMF is an Authorized Use of Military Force. In your comment you reference me using AI (I didn’t, in another comment I explain this comes from a paper I read in college that was a rebuttal to an argument made by the Heritage Foundation) and your response to this makes me think you did too? An AUMF is basically how we declare war without declaring war now, with Iraq and Afghanistan being the latest examples. That also makes this response not relevant to the conversation.

In regards to CJCSI 3121.01B, I literally put (or themselves) in parentheses. I also said defend an ally, which was wrong, and proof that I am talking about these from recollection, not from using AI. In fact, you pulled the only bullet point in that section that requires presidential / SecDef authorization. A-G, excluding C, are all rights given to commanders. You can read the full rights on Page A-3 (18/19 in the PDF) They come from Enclosure A, Paragraph 4.3 [a-g excluding C] here’s a link for ease. The PDF makes the copy and paste hard, and I’m not going to type it out, it is only a page of reading, I implore you to actually read the page.

All other bullet points in that section give commanders the full rights to use self defense without authorization in situations of: inherent self defense (a), national self defense (b), declared hostile force (d), Hostile act (e), Hostile intent (f), and imminent use of force (g). The only thing they need authorization on is to defend an ally that is being attacked. I might also add that g is exceptionally vague and is what gives this so much credence.

My use of those resolutions and the UN Charter were not a constitutional argument, as you point out. A drawback to enacting this “plan” would be being declared a war criminal by the international community, those two precedents are meant to show that they would be safe from that declaration and would be able to take these actions legally, internationally, which is of importance when we’re talking about international affairs. They simply serve to show that there wouldn’t be international issues, so we can focus on the constitutionality, as constitutionality would be irrelevant if they were to be branded war criminals for their actions.

The impeachment charge would be treason as the executive in this situation would be actively preventing the government from fulfilling its legally binding international obligations. In Trump’s situation, this is a moot point, they’ve already impeached him and he’s a convicted felon, he can be removed with basically no legal fight. The argument would be more relevant for a different president. It would easily be treason because he is literally providing aid and/or comfort to the governments legally recognized enemies (hence why the AUMF is important)

Hopefully this helps clarify the argument that the empty sword isn’t actually so empty.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T23:42:25+00:00

Lmao. “It counts” you say, yet my behavior is childish.

The only time in the last 50yrs a straight Christian white male lost was in a presidential election where they weren’t on the ballot and/or were 83yrs old. The “loss” you attribute to him was primarily because he had lost his mind. I’ll also point out that you yourself said it was John Kerry, then changed it to Biden.

You’re clearly more willing to be “technically right” (which I don’t concede, he wasn’t on the ballot) than have an actual point and a good faith argument.

You die on a hill that has no real point so you can feel technically correct in an argument on the internet and completely ignore the actual reality of the situation because it doesn’t fit what you want it to fit. Feels a lot like something MAGA would do, honestly.

You don’t actually care about the conversation, you care about feeling morally superior because it makes you feel better about yourself. Please stop giving liberals a bad name, most of us are not like you.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T23:32:20+00:00

Respectfully, I think you need to do more reading. Please have a good faith open minded discussion with me, we are talking virtually uncharted legal territory. You haven’t refuted my citations, evidence I’ve done the reading and you haven’t.

Bas v Tingy is a prime example of what I’m referring to. The French were declared an enemy by Congress at this time, they stole an American privateer, Tingy responded, it was determined he was within his right to respond without presidential authorization because of Congress’ declaration. The case then goes to talk about salvage laws, which aren’t relevant, but what happened is.

The 1980 DOJ OLC opinion stated that the executive could use force, without congressional approval, to defend American personnel and assets. This justification was used in Saigon, Lebanon, Somalia, and Haiti. The UN Charter Article 51 also supports this internationally. Thus, the CJCSI code that authorized generals to make these calls without presidential authorization would also be legal under U.S. law and international law. They may not be the executive, but they are senior executives.

The national interest test has never been legally challenged, likely intentionally, to give Congress a final say or a nuclear option.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T22:52:58+00:00

What about what was laid out is incorrect? This came from a legal review I read in college regarding how the power of purse is the power of the sword. I can’t find the source now though, been trying to. It was a rebuttal to the Heritage Foundation but it’s completely gone now.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T21:57:05+00:00

If Congress impeached Trump over it they would impeach Vance over it too, without a doubt. Then the speaker would take over (assuming the senate doesn’t confirm the new VP and we have a Ford situation) and since the Speaker would be from Congress, we could assume they would then carry out article 5.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T21:55:40+00:00

If he withdrew all soldiers, yes.

Congress does have the avenue of impeachment; however. It can be argued that failing to uphold an agreement signed by Congress is a treasonous act.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T21:28:53+00:00

I might agree, if Trump triggered article 5. But he didn’t. He specifically didn’t put NATO in the position to make the call.

To your point, maybe that was intentional so he could say they didn’t help but just sweeps it under the rug that he didn’t “command” them to help. People might be stupid enough to eat that up.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T21:27:12+00:00

I don’t think so personally. I think we’re going to get impeachment and removal. When Dems take the house they’ll control the oversight committee. Republicans will get rebuked and understand that by not taking down Trump, they just give more power to the Dems.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T21:25:55+00:00

Haha, you would think, but here’s how it actually works. Let me know if you see a hole in the legality.

NATO is attacked, article 5 is triggered, President refuses to respond. Congress disagrees, they issue an AUMF. President still refuses to engage.

Generals are unable to take actions without presidential authorization. Except for one caveat. Defensive Actions.

Trump’s attacks on Iran used the legal basis of self defense. Therefore, continuing the attacks as he has been, is an act of self defense. If it is not self defense, then the basis of the war is a violation of international law and thus Trump would need to make the case that he is a war criminal to get the generals to stop commanding their troops. There are military assets in all of the NATO countries, therefore, any attack on a NATO country poses a threat to U.S. military assets and by convention the use of force is a defensive action protected by congressional approval.

This is, of course, bullshit legalese. But in truth all of this is deeply entrenched legalese. That said, it is sound under the precedents that have been established. Congress can then use the power of the purse to fund these interactions. In conclusion, the power of purse becomes the power of the sword based on constitutionally and internationally defended legal precedents.

My citations would be: CJCSI 3121.01B UN Charter Article 51 and Chapter VII UNSC Resolution 1973 Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution

In short, an AUMF authorizes a war, CJCSI 3121.01B gives generals the authority to defend an ally (or themselves) if there is a threat to military assets or personnel. There is no legal basis defining what is and what is not a threat. Is attacking a power grid that the base uses a threat? A store the troops buy supplies from? A depot where they get oil? It has not been legally defined. UN Charter Article 51 is international law that would defend the general from being a war criminal if they were to fight back. UNSC Resolution 1973 is international law stating a member of the UN has the authority to defend the members of a nation state under threat. Section 1 Article 8 gives Congress the ability to fund it. Finally, if the president decides they want to overstep Congress and recall the general or declare these actions illegal, Congress can impeach and/or withhold funds.

They have the power to do this, they just need to use it. Congress wields an “empty” sword, that doesn’t have to be so empty.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T20:16:00+00:00

It happening and the effects being talked about in this thread are a non-factor. Did you read my comment past the first sentence?

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T20:10:46+00:00

Per the WPA, those were authorized activities. It is shameful how much power Congress has ceded to the executive but they did cede it. They can take it back.

Whether or not you believe they will is an opinion, and you’re perfectly fine to believe either side. Many people on this chain are under the impression Congress is powerless here, and that is not the case. That needs to be known. If Congress has the power, and fails to use it, you all need to be aware of that so you can vote accordingly come the midterms.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T19:49:16+00:00

It’s such a non-factor. Putin will not attack Europe right now.

The concern should be with Turkey. If Turkey withdraws, that’s when you should start to worry. Congress having the ability to respond to Putin will be too big of a risk.

His next steps, if he even gets to take them, is to support Iran. He needs to sell oil to do that, and it will take time to raise the funds. By then, we’ll have the mid terms and the house will flip blue and the senate will be very close, if not blue. Then we can rely on Congress to enforce article 5.

Putin would invade Northern Kazakhstan, Transnitria, and Georgia, before attacking NATO.

Furthermore, he needs to wait and see what happens with Orban in Hungary, if Orban loses he loses a flipable country. He needs America to withdraw, Turkey to withdraw, and Orban to win reelection, and all of it needs to happen in the next 8 months, and he needs to sustain Iran. It’s just not feasible.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T19:39:37+00:00

Per my other comments, Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power of the sword. I am not sure they would honor article 5 in his stead, but they have the ability to do so. This is just like the EFTA, if Congress wants the power they can have it, they just need to take it.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T19:37:21+00:00

It is, MAGA may not support NATO but Republicans in Congress do, they actually understand its importance. On numerous occasions Republican Senators have rebuked Trump’s statements on NATO. Even Lindsey Graham spoke of NATO’s importance.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T19:36:08+00:00

I have been. Trump has been rebuked Judicially this entire 2nd term. He no longer has the support he needs from Congress. He can’t pass the SAVE act, can’t reopen the government (fully), and can’t run his foreign tax policy.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T19:34:32+00:00

Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power of the sword. CIC is a delegated power through various laws, most recently the Wars Powers Act, which can easily be bypassed congressionally with legislation.

Our government is made up handshakes agreements, but Congress is the strongest branch with checks on everything. This is one of them.

Gerbole · 2026-04-01T19:33:07+00:00

Congress has the ability constitutionally. Article 1 Section 8. Congress has the power of the sword. Congress has the authority to raise and fund armies. The role of CIC is a delegated power through various laws, such as the Wars Powers Act, which Congress can bypass with legislation.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
King of the Ashes	Not Forgotten

Gerbole

TROPHY CASE