Report: FBI Wants to Interview Democrats Who Told Military to Refuse Illegal Orders
The Defense Department already announced an investigation into Sen. Kelly for alleged “serious allegations of misconduct.”
Fox News reported that the DOJ asked the Capitol Police to schedule interviews with the six Democrats who encouraged the military to ignore illegal orders from President Donald Trump and the administration.
They are:
- Rep. Jason Crow (CO)
- Rep. Chris Deluzio (PA)
- Rep. Maggie Goodlaner (NH)
- Rep. Chriss Houlahan (PA)
- Sen. Mark Kelly (AZ)
- Sen. Elissa Slotkin (MI)
Politico said it also received information from an anonymous source.
The Defense Department already announced an investigation into Kelly for alleged “serious allegations of misconduct.”
“The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces,” the department wrote on X. “Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels.”
All six Democrats have national security and military backgrounds.
“President Trump is using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass Members of Congress. Yesterday, the FBI contacted the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms requesting interviews,” Crow, Goodlander, Deluzio, and Houlahan stated. “No amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution.”
The Democrats said that a person “can refuse orders” and “must refuse illegal orders.”
As I wrote yesterday, that is false, according to Military Defense:
Important Note: All military orders are presumed lawful. The burden falls on the service member to establish that an order is manifestly unlawful. This is a high standard, and hesitation or refusal can carry serious consequences—even if ultimately justified.
Because of this legal complexity, service members should consult with legal counsel as soon as they suspect an order may be unlawful. Do not disobey an order without first seeking guidance from a qualified military attorney, unless the order is clearly illegal on its face (e.g., ordering you to shoot unarmed civilians).
Elizabeth wrote about Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) unleashing a profanity-laced rant against the Defense Department.
Gallego also warned of consequences once Trump leaves office if Kelly is court-martialed.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“President Trump is using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass Members of Congress.”
It’s allowed.
Jack Smith.
Democrat Rules.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (MI) is CIA; at least she didn’t wave a car bomb into an American military base in Iraq. How she ended up as Senator is baffling.
Our weekly dose of media chaos.
Asking questions isn’t harassment. Besides they can always plead the 5th.
Heck. Go back to General Flynn. Hopefully the FBI catches these losers in lies and gets to prosecute them for it.
They will claim congressional immunity for their words.
Subotai Bahadur
But their little video was NOT “legislative speech” , which is the only speech that is protected. Political activities are explicitly not protected.
United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 502 (1972)
Meant to comment here:
They certainly can try but they weren’t speaking from the floor of the Senate or the House when they made their seditious video so they might have a bit of a problem with that.
That makes no difference. The speech or debate clause covers anything said by a congressman or a staffer, in any place, so long as it’s got a legislative or oversight purpose.
Article I, section 6: “They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.”
This is the speech/debate clause.
There is nothing here about providing immunity to a staffer. The travel clause pertains to arrest for an act directly related to their office (e.g., a drunk Senator who drives a car into a tidal pond can still be arrested). The speech/debate sentence reads (to me) as anything said within the chambers of the Congress — floor, committee, offices, etc. One might stretch that into “official duties” which privileges, for example, a campaign speech or a TV interview.
But note the sentence, “They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace,…” That’s the controlling part of this — members are privileged in their official activities unless they’re committing a crime. Then the privilege goes away.
So a Senator who glibly instructs the military to disobey “illegal orders” can be properly investigated to see whether, in fact, he was committing sedition by undermining the discipline and good order of the military. And if reasonable grounds exist (define as due process should do), then he can charged for what he said, even if he said them on the floor of the Senator chambers.
I thought it was the War Department. I can’t keep up.
They’ve diversified.
The War Department now has a Defense Department and an Offense Department.
Also a special teams
It’s still officially the Defense Department. War Department is just another name it uses.
They certainly can try but they weren’t speaking from the floor of the Senate or the House when they made their seditious video so they might have a bit of a problem with that.
That makes no difference.
In any case, they don’t need the speech or debate clause. The first amendment is sufficient.
Even actual sedition isn’t and can’t be a crime, unless it meets the strict criteria for incitement. Urging the overthrow of the USA is “mere advocacy”, which is protected speech. It doesn’t matter what you may find in some statute or other; statutes that contradict the constitution are automatically invalid.
A charge of sedition isn’t gonna fly any of them. I’d say you are almost certainly correct that successful charge/prosecution of all but Kelly are nearly impossible.
Kelly is differently situated. Unlike the others he is a military retiree and he remains subject to the UCMJ. Offenses under UCMJ are those which are ‘prejudicial to maintaining good discipline and military order’.
So what is the likely charge, if any, under UCMJ? IMO it will be the easiest for the DoD to successfully pursue; Article 133 Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.
There’s three elements the govt must prove.
1. Was Kelly an Officer? Yep, even as a retired Officer.
2. Did Kelly engage in the conduct? Yep, undisputed.
3. Was the conduct unbecoming? Almost certainly yes.
Under UCMJ ‘unbecoming conduct’ is interpreted very broadly. In general all it needs to be to meet the threshold is something that brought disrepute on the Armed Forces. IOW merely creating the impression of unprofessional behavior, lack of integrity or lack of moral character is enough.
Kelly can try and raise a defense based on ‘speech and debate’. Frankly I don’t think it is applicable to UCMJ. If it were then all the members of HoR and Senate who also serve part time in Reserve or NG status while in office would also be exempt. That in and of itself would be undermining ‘prejudicial to the maintenance of good order and military discipline’ which is the basis of Military Law/UCMJ.
Curious to me that there’s no (?) talk about chain of command. President Trump doesn’t give orders to the enlisted men, per se, but to the commanders, who implement the President’s command / policy in specific orders passed down the chain to the enlisted men.
The onus for ensuring orders are legal, would seem to be upon secretaries, commanders – the brass. For the S6 to bypass that chain of command / accountability and go direct to the enlisted men is an encouragement to question not only the President, but the entire military chain of command – i.e., to sew the seeds of mistrust and insubordination.
And with no examples (adjudicated) of illegal orders? The S6 need to be prosecuted and jailed.
Despite the one (at the moment) downvote, your comment is correct.
Orders are issued from the commander-in-chief. If those orders are “illegal”, it is up to higher command to dispute them. If “higher” passes the order down, it must be obeyed unless the order is obviously illegal (e.g.: shooting unarmed civilians). To refuse to obey an order is punishable under the UCMJ. The chain of command cannot be broken without serious consequences.
Serving in the armed forces does not convey a law degree. Military members are trained to obey an order without question, as others might die should they hesitate or fail to carry out those orders. For the so-called “S6” to make these comments undermines the “good order and discipline” required for those in military service. And it also reveals how little they understand about the chain of command. It makes me wonder if they served in the same military as I did.
Yes, and past incidents the military has never come down on lower level soldiers for obeying even illegal orders.
The My Lai massacre was arguably the most famous demonstration of this. Around 100 soldiers participated in the massacre, only 22 were actually prosecuted, and only ONE was actually convicted – the lieutenant in charge of the platoon that did the bulk of the killings.
The captain actually in command of the company was NOT convicted, and neither was a single enlisted soldier, even the worst ones.
And then the lieutenant’s sentence was commuted, by the way.
So the standard set by the military was essentially no individual soldier is actually responsible for refusing an illegal order, ONLY the officer, and even then, its better to obey.
This is why the left was so fast to try and diminish Hegseth and claim he’s illegitimate. They MUST foment distrust and they MUST treat the President and his entire cabinet as illegal interlopers taking over the rightful rule of democrats. They’ve been playing a dangerous game for the last decade and they’ve ramped up their rhetoric. It’s just not going to end well.
I’m getting such a kick out of seeing the “hilarity ensues” consequences of Kelly assuming he’s finally ready to play with the big boys.
Credibility? Ah … no.
Houlihan has a “please don’t hurt me for what I’m saying” expression. Seems I read she’s a USAF veteran but she served only a small part of an enlistment so, to this AF/ANG retiree, she barely qualifies.
Slotkin looks like she’s disciplining her unruly children with a heaping helping of sarcasm.
Kelly ALWAYS seems to be in a bad mood with a “don’t you dare cross me” attitude. His arrogance is disgusting. I’ve known many flag officers who didn’t see a need to try to be intimidating, but he wants to be a bully. Screw him.
.
Leftists who have never been in the military don’t understand that it’s not like civilian life where you can argue with your boss and refuse to do something requested. There is a wide gulf between an order you don’t like and an order that’s illegal.
In today’s military there is a JAG lawyer assigned to every battalion in the field. They have the ability to question officers in real time about ROE potential violations. During Iraq and Afghanistan they inserted themselves frequently. Lt Col West comes to mind. Not a ROE, but an exigent circumstance when gathering intelligence about an ambush. The easiest thing to do is ask for an interview with the TJAG of each service about legal vs Illegal orders. I feel certain that orders from the President pass through DOJ as well as the TJAG for legal opinion. Think Iran last summer.
Following the presented logic, if Trump feels that an injunction placed upon the Executive is unlawful or illegal then he should ignore the court and proceed as he wishes. I wonder what Kelly, et al, would have to say about that?
President Andrew Jackson enters the conversation.
Certainly the Seditious Six calculated what would be coming after their ludicrous calls for disobedience. Perhaps the focus should be on the aftermath and what happens or doesn’t happen next. If nothing of significance rebounds on them, voila, they are emboldened and will strike again.
Isn’t Ruben Gallego the Sinaloa cartel congressman?