Sedition? Six Congressional Democrats Urge US Troops to Defy Orders From Trump UPDATE: Trump Responds
“Democrat lawmakers are now openly calling for insurrection.”
There must have been a time in American history when six sitting lawmakers urging members of the military to defy the commander-in-chief would have been viewed as outright sedition — and those lawmakers would have quickly faced justice. In the age of Trump, however, those days are long gone.
Touting their prior military and intelligence service, Democratic Sens. Elissa Slotkin (MI), who organized the video, Mark Kelly (AZ), and Reps. Chris Deluzio (PA), Maggie Goodlander (NH), Chrissy Houlahan (PA), and Jason Crow CO), launched a surreal video on Tuesday in which they called on troops to refuse to carry out what they consider to be President Donald Trump’s “illegal” orders.
Here is their statement, which the lawmakers read to viewers in turns:
We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe.
We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.
Americans trust their military. But that trust is at risk.
This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.
Our laws are clear.
You can refuse illegal orders. (Repeated twice.)
You must refuse illegal orders.
No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard. And it’s a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you’re serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back. Because now, more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans.
Don’t give up. (Repeated twice.)
Don’t give up the ship.
🚨 HOLY CRAP: Democrat members of Congress– including Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly– just released a video encouraging members of the military to defy orders from President Trump.
The party of “NO KINGS” is now encouraging a military coup.pic.twitter.com/AH2Xf3OPw8
— CJ Pearson (@Cjpearson) November 18, 2025
Responding to the video on X, close Trump adviser Stephen Miller wrote, “Democrat lawmakers are now openly calling for insurrection.”
Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) summed up the situation in a post that read, “At the end of the day, they’re mad the American people chose Trump and now they’re calling on the Military and Intelligence Community to intervene. Sounds a little ‘subversive to democracy-ish.'”
I think most Americans would agree.
I’ll leave the legal analysis and the consequences for their actions to the lawyers among us. But, as I see it, there is a very thin line between irresponsible rhetoric and sedition, and these members of Congress may have crossed it.
The New York Times reached out to Slotkin for a comment. She said, “I feel I’ve been a one-note song on these issues from the moment I entered the Senate, and they do not respond.”
According to the Times, Slotkin explained that “she and her Democratic colleagues had pressed the Trump administration repeatedly for assurances that they would follow the law and had often been dismissed.”
Here are some of the responses from X users:
Democrats are domestic enemies.
— Greyman7107 (@greyman7107) November 18, 2025
@SenatorSlotkin @SenMarkKelly Sedition is a Federal Crime. @TheJusticeDept @EdMartinDOJ pic.twitter.com/ub3TRCN9fu
— Judy Halston (@USpatriot101) November 18, 2025
They won’t stop. They must be stopped. pic.twitter.com/qb9aC1zpvO
— 🇺🇸CaptainObvious🇺🇸 (@realStevenMcK) November 18, 2025
This is really awful, and these representatives should be careful how they proceed. Because it’s not up to individual service members to determine what is or is not a lawful order. Each member isn’t an attorney. They are there to FOLLOW orders, not litigate them. This is coming…
— John Bulkeley (@bulkeley_john) November 18, 2025
Another replied, “PSA: An order is not “illegal” just because you don’t like it. These are the same people who said nothing when Obama ordered a drone strike on a man he knew was a US citizen.”
The following post from a Vietnam veteran cautions politicians about making careless remarks. During the Vietnam War, he said, “Young men listened. Some took it the wrong way. Some hesitated when they shouldn’t have. Some did things they can never unsee because the words from on high were sloppy, political, or just plain reckless. Good kids died. Innocent villagers died. Units broke in ways you can’t fix with another medal or another apology.”
@SenMarkKelly @ElissaSlotkin @RepPatRyanNY @RepHoulahan @SenDuckworth @RepJasonCrow @RepMikieSherrill @RepSpanberger
I’m a Vietnam vet. I carried a rifle when politicians in Washington and Saigon said careless things on TV and in briefings. Young men listened. Some took it the… pic.twitter.com/BZO52HKquL
— Rick (@3rdMAW_ELTORO) November 18, 2025
RedState’s Streiff, a retired Army infantry officer, wrote an especially insightful piece last week in response to a PBS article that claimed that military officers were “lawyering up” over Trump’s orders. I highly recommend reading it.
First and foremost, any order you receive from a superior officer, so long as it is military related, is presumed to be lawful. You don’t get to demand to see a legal opinion; you really don’t even get to do the theatrical, “give it to me in writing.” This is from the “Sourcebook,” but it is taken directly from Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer.
…
If you guess wrong, it can be painful. You could be looking at life in prison in a worst-case scenario.
Streiff explained that the laws pertaining to a soldier’s refusal to follow a military order make it a “high bar to clear.” He concluded:
The bottom line, consulting a lawyer is not, in the case of either blowing up drug cartel boats or invading Venezuela is not going to give you an out. If you object, have the guts to go into your boss’s office, throw your rank on his desk, and tell him you’re out.
UPDATE: November 20, 10 a.m.
Trump responded to the video with fire in a post on Truth Social. He wrote:
It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand – We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET. President DJT
I couldn’t agree with him more.
Trump is calling for the arrest of Democratic members of Congress who made a video urging the military to refuse “illegal orders.” pic.twitter.com/PGA3sV3nlC
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 20, 2025
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
You follow orders. Then, after things have calmed down, you go through your chain of command with your concerns. BTDT, as an E-2 in 1976.
former TSgt [E-6] Rusty Bill
USAF/MsANG/TxANG
So, if you received orders to fire upon unarmed and peaceful citizens exercising their first amendment rights, you’d follow those orders and then lodge a complaint later?
I’m sure you’d enjoy your trial and incarceration.
Why would such an order be made? Your imagination can run wild but that doesn’t make it happen. There are millions of illegal orders you can dream up but that doesn’t mean anything until they happen. I was told to strafe a Vietnamese parade that had Viet Cong among the innocents by a FAC but I refused. Nothing happened to me.
The RedState article cited above reveals the UCMJ to be schizophrenic on the subject – you can be punished for not following a lawful order (a post hoc determination by a military tribunal) because you think it unlawful. But if you follow an unlawful order that a tribunal thinks you should have known was unlawful, you’re also subject to punishment. This makes no sense. We made it clear after WW II that “I was only following orders” is not a defense against prosecution. Period. And German soldiers were under oath to obey the Fuhrer and their officers, while US forces are sworn to “support and defend the Constitution.” If anyone could rely on such a defense it would have been German officers and soldiers, because US forces primarily swear to support and defend the Constitution and only secondarily to follow orders (as are officers sworn) so long as they are lawful. No US military personnel swear to follow unlawful orders, so they are not sworn to follow all orders. The oath imposes the decision making on the oath taker. We can look at the likes of General Milley to see why it is unsound to rely on the opinions or morality of even the highest-ranking officers. The purpose of allowing anyone receiving orders to refuse them as unlawful is to allow the individual soldier to separate himself from criminal acts. Doubtless, most of the time this won’t actually prevent the act, as others will be found to follow the order, so it’s not like an order’s execution can be prevented unless the order is so egregiously unlawful that there’s a general refusal of it.
But the UCMJ is twisted on this subject, chilling the individual’s exercise of his moral compass by threatening punishment for either mistaking a lawful order for an unlawful order and for threatening punishment for not recognizing an unlawful order (with a post hoc determination that the recognition should have taken place). Granted, soldiers should be held accountable individually for crimes committed, but OTOH soldiers should also be absolutely immune from prosecution when their personal moral compasses direct them to disobey an order. Allowing anyone in a chain for a command to declare an order unlawful is a failsafe meant to potentially prevent the execution of unlawful orders and it is important to our Republic and should be required so long as we consider our troops independent moral agents.
It’s actually not schizophrenic. It provides immunity for obeying an order that later turns out to have been unlawful — but only if you (a) actually didn’t know that it was unlawful, and also (b) an ordinary person would not have known that it was unlawful. In other words you obey orders, even ones you suspect may be unlawful, but not ones you know to be unlawful, either because you have specific knowledge or because it’s obvious.
In principle this is no different from many cases in which the law requires you to know what an ordinary person would know. For instance if you kill someone in self-defense, you must have genuinely feared death or serious injury, but also that fear must have been reasonable. If the jury finds that you were afraid, but a reasonable person in your position wouldn’t have been, you’re guilty. Same thing here.
I would like to know the source for Millhouse’s claim that one has immunity for following an order that turned out to be unlawful, because he believed it to be lawful.
I was taught the exact opposite — not knowing was not considered to be a legitimate defense.
Well, that was almost certain BH (Before Hillary) so your confusion is understandable.
Rule 916. Defenses
(d) Obedience to orders. It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.
Guys, Milhouse is correct here. Use some common sense. If a Commander orders you to bayonet babies that’s clearly not a lawful order and everyone knows it.
That’s not the framework/context that these d/prog are using. Instead they are urging service members to challenge and refuse orders based on what amount to essentially policy questions. That’s not how it works. Absent clear evidentiary basis that a particular order is illegal (such as bayoneting babies) then the order is PRESUMPTIVELY valid/legal. The Commander in Chief sets the policy period. Don’t like it then refuse to reenlist at your ETS date but in the meantime you follow orders, even orders you disagree with. I’ve followed lots of frankly dumbass orders b/c after I addressed my concerns, offered alternatives the Commander said ‘nope were doing it my way’. FWIW none of those were illegal orders but a few were spectacularly stupid and counter productive to the mission and far more often than not I was ultimately proven correct.
Simple test; is the order prima facie unlawful? If the answer is yes then you should refuse…but if the immediate answer is ‘no or I ain’t exactly sure, needs more study’ then the legal presumption is that the order is lawful.
The UCMJ is not about Law or Justice, it is about good ORDER and discipline. Maintaining Military Standards and Conduct. I was sent to prison for a situation that can be best analogized as being sent to prison for not stopping someone from doing something… that they did not do(a Court Acquitted them of all Charges), after I was no longer in Command, and wasn’t even IN the same Country at the time. I was denied an appeal, and the only legal recourse now available is a Presidential Pardon.
I don’t think that is what they’re doing. As I’ve said many times here, I don’t think their message is aimed at service members at all. They’re just being cynically used as pawns. The message is really aimed at the general public, and the purpose is to create the false impression that Trump is such a fascist felon lunatic that at any moment he is likely to give orders that are blatantly unlawful, on a par with bayoneting babies. They don’t really expect such orders ever to be given, but they want us to worry that they will, and therefore to vote Democrat.
“Why would such an order be made?”
Don’t know. Not saying it ever would. Just using an extreme example to illustrate the folly of Rusty Bill’s position.
“I was told to strafe a Vietnamese parade that had Viet Cong among the innocents by a FAC but I refused. Nothing happened to me.”
So, you recognized that it was an illegal order and refused to follow it.
What you DIDN’T do is follow Rusty Bill’s Advice…which was wise of you.
The Dem Senators could have been as specific and clear as you, but they were purposefully vague. In fact, they couldn’t have been more vague. What do you think they are trying to accomplish?
They were specific and clear: you must disobey illegal orders. What they’re trying to accomplish is to create an impression that Trump is likely to order the military to strafe innocent villagers, or something equally heinous.
They would not obey those orders in the first place so they need not be told about it.
More likely thay were following the Pritzger pre-emptive message:
“The tables will turn one day, These people should recognize that maybe they’re not gonna get prosecuted today, although we’re looking at doing that, but they may get prosecuted after the Trump administration.”
In other words, think hard before you obey an order.
The Dem Senators were specific, and intentionally vague at the same time. This is a two-fer on their part ‘and’ instead of ‘or’ in your conclusion. They first want normal Americans to be terrified and believe a lie that Trump is ordering US military members to conduct war crimes. Second, they want gullible and leftist members of the military to stand up and barracks-lawyer the lawful orders they have been given. This will allow the Dems to lie about the orders, protest the subsequent removal of the service members from their positions and possible imprisonment, hire them as puppets to display at every campaign event for more scripted lies, and promise them (under the table and never in writing) a nice fat check for their trouble when they regain the White House. At which point, the Dems will (in my best opinion) proceed to toss them under the bus while pursuing trumped-up charges against military members who did actions which they consider illegal (such as blowing up drug boats) and rooting out any members who have even the slightest Republican tendencies. (like they did during Biden and Obama)
Of course they don’t need to be told about it. The message is not intended for them but for the general public, and is that Trump is a dangerous fascist lunatic who is likely to give unlawful orders that the military will have to disobey. It’s a cynical political message, not a genuine expression of concern.
Don’t be a douche. Obviously illegal orders like murdering civilians in cold blood are not covered. Even an old paratrooper that got dropped on his head like me knows that. It’s questioning or outright refusing orders where it gets real dicey. These congressman are not inciting insurrection from what I see but they might be leading a whole lot of soldiers and Marines onto a dark path. It seems Democrats have finally focused squarely on destroying our military in their long march. The fact they won’t be the ones in charge if they are successful doesn’t seem to have crossed their minds. How quickly Mao is forgotten
But those are precisely the orders that these congressmen pretend to be afraid Trump is likely to give. They’re saying don’t obey such orders, which is obvious; but their purpose is to convince the public that we should worry about such orders being given, and vote Democrat to prevent it. It’s dishonest and cynical and entirely political.
So … is our standing nuclear defense strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction, which involves the wholesale incineration of every single man, woman, child, and pet of the enemy is “illegal”?
I think not.
How about the firebombing of tens of wooden cities, burning whole sities to death? Illegal? I think not.
War is hell. Too many people have been taken with the modern fiction that war is nothing but a game between militaries. That is not the truth of it.
That said, that has nothing to do with what these insurrectionist dems are talking about, as they have already described ICE detainments as “kidnapping” (though they are not only legal detainments but required under law) and they have proposed the goofy notion that all military actions must be preceeded by full evidentiary hearings on the specific operations and warrants issued by district judges of the galaxy …
That’s not murder. In war, deliberately targeting civilians is illegal. It’s a war crime. But attacking a legitimate military target, even knowing that there will inevitably be collateral damage to civilians, is legal.
Again, legal if it serves a legitimate military objective, and is proportionate to the military importance of that objective.
That is not what they are talking about. Martha Maccallum asked Jason Crow exactly what orders he had in mind, and he couldn’t give her an answer, because they’re talking about hypothetical future orders, not ones that have actually been given. Orders that will never be given, so they never have to come out and say yes, that’s what we meant.
LOL.
I’m not going to even bother wasting time answering much of your ridiculous crap. Strategic nuclear weapons are trained on cities, not military targets. The civilians are the friggin tarets – and rightly so. That’s how wars are fought.
… and, sheesh, do I really have to explain that firebombing cities was intended not for military purposes other than to kill every man, woman,, and child in those cities – which was just and right and effective.
How dumb do you think people are to believe any of your BS about this. War is war.
THE ONLY CRIME IN WAR IS LOSING.
War is war, but in war it is unlawful to target civilians, and civilized nations hang their own men who do so. Only targets of military value may be attacked; any civilians who are so unfortunate as to be in the vicinity are sadly SOL.
The Allies absolutely denied this at the time. Had they admitted it those who participated would have had to be tried.
As long as the civilians themselves are collateral to the valid military objective and/or target then that’s tough cookies for the civilians. There’s no requirement to eliminate the possibility of civilian deaths only a requirement to attempt, in so far as possible given conditions, timeframe, available assets to TRY and minimize collateral civilian deaths. Don’t have to succeed just have to make a good faith effort. Otherwise you end up validating ‘human shield’ tactics.
It doesn’t matter if one civilian or 100K civilians are killed as collateral damage of a legally valid military objective being eliminated when using weapons appropriate to the task, and totality of circumstances. Can’t drop a nuke on the apartment of a single high value target that’s clearly not appropriate weapon for the job. However using a strike package of several hellfire missiles or a tomahawk missile would be a legitimate use of munitions relative to the target. Civilian casualties are gonna occur in the adjacent apartments occupied by civilians. Totally lawful under laws of armed conflict.
It looks like a lot of folks are too emotional to think rationally. Of course, you are correct. Of course, Slotkin and Kelly should be charged with sedition. Of course, most orders are legal. Finally, of course, some orders may be blatantly illegal and should not be followed. The consequences of getting it wrong could be grave.
Unless you know the order is illegal, or it’s so illegal that any normal person would know it. Then you must disobey it.
They’re not trying to get servicemen to refuse orders, they’re trying to create the impression that Trump is likely to give illegal orders which must be disobeyed. They’re “reminding” servicemen of their duty to disobey such orders, purely so the public will imagine Trump giving such orders, and thus see him as a “34-times convicted felon” and somehow an illegitimate president. They don’t care how this impacts actual servicemen; the political advantage is all they see.
Instead of warning soldiers not to obey illegal orders, wouldn’t it make more sense to warn officers not to give illegal orders?
They’re insinuating that the illegal orders will come from the President, and “reminding” the military top brass that if this were to happen it would be their duty to refuse to pass them on.
Again, it’s all about gaslighting the public, not about the actual military at all.
What fine guidance from a pile of pontificators. They don’t even say what orders they consider illegal.
Of course they don’t say. They’re not alleging that any of Trump’s orders are illegal, they’re saying that if he gives such orders you must disobey them. Their purpose is to create the impression that he’s likely to give such orders. Their audience is not the actual military, it’s the voters. It’s completely political and cynical.
Quite correct. They are planting the seed in as an opaque manner as possible to give them a refuge for responsibility. I wonder how many of our military will listen to this garbage and destroy their lives
So they are suggesting, then, that Trump is possibly going to be issuing some illegals orders so be on the alert.
Yes. It’s part of their campaign to undermine his legitimacy.
Agreed, because they’re Dems. They’re only interested in power and don’t care how they get/retain it.
OTOH, an attempt to try them under 18 U.S. Code § 2387 – Activities affecting armed forces generally could be made. Encouraging “insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States” is not a core function of Congress, so the matter may be pushed as one in which they are not immune from prosecution. Even if they are immune, the process is the punishment. Their rules.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2387
No, even without their congressional immunity for anything reasonably connected with their legislative or oversight functions, they still can’t be charged because it’s protected speech. 18 USC 2387, if read literally, is mostly unconstitutional. To save it from unconstitutionality, the courts will not read it literally. They’ll say well, it obviously doesn’t include protected speech but only actual incitement as defined by the Brandenburg criteria, so there’s no case here but the law is preserved.
They are pretty much saying that he’s going to (or already has) given “illegal orders,” however vague the reasoning or even what those orders are. It’s clear the Dems (and some GOPe) don’t believe in enforcing federal immigration law. This is definitely (1) a set up for future retaliation and (2) a way to further gum up the works, as they are doing across the board with their endless lawfare.
As for city bombing in WW2, the strikes on Japan were a way to get at decentralized industry and because high altitude precision strikes simply were not working. Also, “dehousing” or otherwise killing the populace was a key tenet of Douhet’s strategy, which USAAF/RAF planners were well aware of.
They key was end the war as soon as possible, hopefully without an amphibious invasion (which would have been even more horrendous).
A pile of pontificating politicians trumps nattering nabobs of negativism every time!
Thank you Spiro!
Time to find out in how many states these solons have primary residences with mortgages. I bet Kelly still has one in Texas.
The wording sent chills up my spine.
Shades of Lord Haw-Haw and Tokyo Rose
I’m no expert, but this doesn’t seem to me like the left is ‘dialing down the temperature’ while encouraging a military coup against a duly elected president.
I’ll extrapolate it further to say this is a dog whistle to their violent antifa foot soldiers to ‘kill nazis’ since anyone associated with trumpworld is deemed a nazi, and therefore will be a service in the greater good to deliver this violence upon nazis.
But, as Ms. Stauffer correctly deduced, no one will suffer any consequences for this overt call for military coup, or the covert dog whistle to murder political enemies because it’s still just **clownworld**
We are at war. Prepare accordingly.
They are, in their usual projectionist manner, doing precisely what they falsely accused PRESIDENT Trump of doing on J6: fomenting an insurrection.
It never fails: the Dems always accuse the right of what they are actually doing.
Sedition? Isn’t that something where the penalty is a firing squad?
Shooting’s too easy. Confine them in a room with and an endless loop of kamala Harris utterances being played.
Worse: Yoko Ono’s Gratest* Hits “
* spelling intentional
That would be considered torture under the Geneva Convention
Except that they were “captured” out of uniform .
It’s not a war crime the first time.
That would be cruel and unusual punishment!
I will defer to the lawyers among us, but –
Disobeying illegal orders is not refusal of duty, it is duty.
Also, regardless of what this or any other statute says, “mere advocacy” is protected speech, and therefore can’t be a crime. Congress can’t make it a crime, so it doesn’t matter what it wrote. To cross the line into incitement it must fulfill the three elements specified in Brandenburg. It must be both subjectively intended and objectively likely to cause its audience to imminently commit a crime. Imminently, not at some hypothetical future time when they receive an order they might incorrectly think illegal.
(I say “incorrectly”, because if they correctly think it then the Dems are right to tell them to disobey and we have nothing to discuss. Our entire discussion is premised on the orders in fact being legal. In that case advice that they’re illegal is bad advice, but that’s not an exception to the first amendment.)
“Imminently, not at some hypothetical future time when they receive an order they might incorrectly think illegal.”
Because such incitement, in order to be effectuated, relies on the refusal of orders at some future time (because those making the incitement can’t precipitate the orders themselves) they could nearly always avoid prosecution? This seems to me absurd. How soon after this provocation would Trump have to issue an order that might be refused in order for them to be prosecuted? Any order? Does the order also have to be actually met with mutiny and insubordination, or would the potential for same (which could be attendant to any order) be sufficient?
Not “nearly always”. Always.
The question doesn’t make any sense, because if he ever does issue an unlawful order then of course the Dems are right, and the order must be disobeyed.
But even if Trump were to issue an order ten minutes after their speech, which some military members were incorrectly to perceive as unlawful and therefore were unlawfully to disobey it, it would still not be incitement. Any advocacy that is made for some hypothetical future situation cannot be incitement, just as it can’t be a true threat. To be incitement the speaker must intend to cause his audience to commit a crime right away, and it must also be likely that they would do so.
The problem is they see any order he issues as “unlawful.”
I was not referring to service members not carrying out unlawful orders. Obviously, carrying out unlawful orders is not part of their duty. I was referring to the lawmakers encouraging service members to act in an insubordinate manner, to disobey orders, or otherwise refuse to do their duty.
But they’re not doing that. They’re only encouraging them to disobey unlawful orders, which is indeed their duty.
The purpose here is to bolster the Democrat propaganda line against Trump, that he’s a fascist lunatic who’s likely to give the military blatantly illegal orders, such as to cancel the next elections or to seize power from the states or some such nonsense, so they’re warning the military to disobey them.
The inference is that any orders given by Trump are unlawful and therefore should be refused.
No, that is ridiculous and absolutely not the inference intended. Obviously they agree that the vast majority of orders are valid and should be obeyed. They can’t even name one order that isn’t valid. They’re pretending to be concerned about future orders, when Trump takes the gloves off and comes out as a full-blown fascist maniac. Which of course is never going to happen.
The Brandenburg standard applies to incitement. The word incite does not appear a single time in the statute.
We’re not talking about inciting military members to riot, rather advising and urging them to disobey the President’s orders. Orders they are sworn to obey and which are presumably lawful unless they are obviously unlawful, such as ordering them to slaughter unarmed noncombatants.
I believe a reasonable person watching and listening to that presentation could reasonably infer from their words that they are saying the Commander-in-Chief’s orders are de facto unlawful and should be disobeyed. All without providing even a single example of an unlawful order.
While these arguments may not hold up in a court of law, we’re in the court of public opinion right now, and these alleged public leaders are urging what amounts to mutiny in the ranks.
That is incitement, but only if it fits the Brandenburg criteria. Otherwise it’s mere advocacy which is absolutely protected. Congress can’t make a law against it, so when applied to such speech the statute is invalid. The only time it’s valid is if the “advice and urging” cross the line into incitement. And this doesn’t.
Lawyers and JAG lawyers are not the same thing. The military has its own judicial system and laws.
Reminds me of the book, Military Justice is to Justice what Military Music is to Music. It’s an entertaining book, at least, even if wildly incorrect on many points, but it does have other points that struck home years ago when I read it.
These people should know better. Obviously they don’t. Nothing will happen and they will get to preen while attending the very best DC cocktail parties.
I’d be very curious as to who they asked to join them but were refused. There are other democratic congress critters with military and intelligence experience.
I was interested in Maggie Goodlander so I looked her up. Clerked for Gardland and Breyer. Married to Sullivan. Our political class has become that – a class. Very inbred. Disgusting. They’re worried about Kings. I;m worried about the existence of a self-serving self-appointing nobility.
Oh, they do know better. They’re testing how much they can get away with.
Yep. It’s a continuation of the ‘narrative’ of Orange Man Bad. ‘He’s dangerous, a fascist, he’s a totalitarian, an authoritarian’. That’s all this is…pablum served up to feed their lunatic base as ‘evidence they are resisting’ in the hope the lefty/woke mob eats them last.
This isn’t merely sedition, this is an indictment of America’s Education Industry, from K12 through the Ivies.
All of which have been fully infested by the Marxist Dems.
Kelly is an ex-Navy pilot who should know better. This is telling the men and women of our military that they can challenge a order if they suspect it isn’t Constitutional. How will they know and who will they ask? This is a path to Leavenworth!
Please, please hole Mark Kelly’s hull.
The shameful burlesque of his “service” in the Senate has plagued us long enough.
All they need to do is watch Lawrence O’Donnell, Morning Joe, and Rachel Maddow. What these three say is Gospel, right?
Service personnel take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. It’s a personal oath, they are not under obligation to follow anyone else’s opinion on the lawfulness of an order but their own. If this were not true, they’d just be sworn to follow all orders. Although officers take an oath that requires them to follow orders, those orders must also be lawful. Nobody takes an oath to follow all orders, and for a reason – so they can apply their personal moral compass and put themselves in the breach in an attempt to prevent the execution of an unlawful order.
For those who think service personnel should abide by the determinations of those of rank above them, I give you Gen. Mark Milley. He’s proof positive that rank and authority don’t guarantee morality and good judgment.
And people think I’m kidding when I call those communists traitors…
This is a ridiculous position to take.
They did not overtly urge military members to mutiny or refuse lawful orders; what they said was completely accurate…military members are only obligated by the UCMJ to follow LAWFUL orders.
Furthermore, following an unlawful order is not a defense against crimes committed while doing so. If troops mindlessly follow unlawful orders, they can and most likely will be prosecuted for it.
Now you can claim that their INTENT was to urge mutiny, or that the IMPLICATION was for troops to disobey orders they disagree with, lawful or not…but that’s not what they SAID.
Go ahead…try to prosecute someone for what you think they meant when they actually said the exact opposite. See how far you get with that.
And before the flaming starts…I’m a conservative, a retired Navy Chief, a Trump supporter and would be the first to condemn them for actually urging the military to mutiny. But that’s not what they did and this post is nothing more than click bait.
I was actually a little shocked that the author of this piece wasn’t Leslie Eastman…I’ve called her out more than once being a bit fast and loose with the truth, to which she responded…um…poorly. I hope this type of sensationalism and disregard for the facts isn’t becoming a trend with LI authors. That would really be disappointing.
What were they doing then?
As a member of the military, one has given an oath to obey all lawful orders among many more general instructions including conscientiousness, faithfulness and judgement.
The Marine Corps has a process known as Request Mast where each Marine is granted the right to directly communicate to his superior officers up to and including his Commanding General.
When that process has been completed, the Marine will know if the orders he was given are lawful.
Does not say anything about what these people were doing by giving the message concerning something everyone in the military should already know.
Not if his superior officers are likewise criminal and knowingly approve illegal orders.
This isn’t aimed at the guy at the bottom who receives an illegal order, so much as at the officer who receives an illegal order from the political echelon, and must decide whether to pass it on or to refuse.
But the point isn’t that they really expect such orders to be given, but that they want the public to believe that this is likely.
The only possible purpose of this “Mast” is to absolve the Marine of any criminal wrongdoing after his chain of command has repeatedly informed/convinced him that an unlawful or is lawful and he subsequently follows an unlawful order/commits a crime. This doesn’t make sense. If this is what our military wants from its troops, they’d be sworn to follow those orders their officers have convinced them are lawful, rather than swearing directly to support and defend the Constitution.
It’s pretty obvious what they were doing, and it wasn’t inciting insurrection. What they were doing was purely political. Their target audience was not the military but the general public, and their purpose was to cynically create the impression that Trump is likely to give unlawful orders, which the military will have the sad duty to disobey. This is part of their general campaign to try to undermine the public’s perception of Trump’s legitimacy.
Did not ask you, however, and never implied they were trying to incite insurrection.
Why you have this need to explain everyting, even when uncalled for, is odd. You have seen fit to spam your explanation all over the thread, when a comment or two would suffice.
“Their target audience was not the military but the general public….”
Ah ha! Now we’re getting somewhere. Thanks to Milhouse for clearing up the fog.
Yours is the ridiculous position.
None of us are impressed with this semantic BS.
EVERYBODY knows you can refuse an illegal order.
Just like EVERYBODY knows that the Democrats are *wink wink nudge nudge start refusing orders*.
And you’re right. They can’t be convicted for it.
But what’s going to happen is some stupid leftist in the military is going to try and refuse lawful orders, and THEY are going to get themselves prosecuted.
“But what’s going to happen is some stupid leftist in the military is going to try and refuse lawful orders, and THEY are going to get themselves prosecuted.”
We can only hope. Don’t need them in the military anyway, so if they manage to get themselves kicked out, or better yet thrown in the Brig, I’d call that a win.
Oh, if somebody in uniform pulls this Big Chicken Dinner in the right political way, such as refusing to fire on a drug boat or such, the Dems will suddenly find their love of the military and treat the miscreant as if he were Caesar, Grant, Lee, Patton, and Eisenhower all rolled into one. At least until he (or she) becomes useless to them and is discarded.
Democrats creed: The Fentanyl Must Flow!
Considering these “lawyers” support and financing by Democrat Actors my serious issue is the discussing of upcoming missions or classified information that will be transmitted… it isn’t hard to think that a Service Member could be compromised over his/her statements to these Actors and then be blackmailed into giving them dates and times of these drug interdictions operations.
Since they haven’t been given any unlawful orders, which ones do you suppose they should disobey?
They didn’t say or imply that any unlawful orders have already been given. They said in case Trump gives an unlawful order, which being a fascist and a 34-time convicted felon (mustn’t let people forget that) he is likely to do at any moment, they must remember their duty to disobey it. It’s a cynical political message, aimed not at the military but at the public.
Well, that sounds just about dumb enough to come from a communist
It’s not dumb, it’s cynical. It’s part of a carefully planned campaign, and it appears to be working. Let’s hope it fails.
And they’re (probably) not communists, though they don’t seem to have a problem with actual communists infesting their party. The Dem Party has never had a problem with that; FDR even had a communist vice president, which is why he dropped him from the ticket in 1944, when he knew he was picking the next president.
>blockquote>They didn’t say or imply that any unlawful orders have already been given.
They most certainly did imply that. In fact, imply is a bit weak for what they did.
The entire video and the act of making it was, in and of itself, such an implication.
I mean, come on. This ain’t rocket surgery. This much should be more than obvious to anyone who understands human language.
No, it wasn’t. And when confronted, Jason Crow could not come up with even one illegal order that has already been given. This is all about future orders that will never come.
“could not come up with”
How do you know that. Oh, I forgot, your clairvoyance allows you into other people’s minds to know what they’re thinking all the time and for everything.
He refused to list any illegal orders because he realized, seeing the backlash to his seditious idiocy and realizing the jeopardy he had put himself in, that he had better not pursue the stupid ideas that led him to incite insurrection among the military and enforcement/intelligence personnel.
But he already committed the seditious act with the clear intent. That much is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 70, even those who lack the clairvoyant abilities you routinely brandish in support of your laughable points.
I know he couldn’t come up with one, because he didn’t.
didn’t !=> couldn’t
But, given the context, history, and treasonous dirtbags in this video case,
didn’t => wouldn’t
I’m willing to bet that there are some very interesting emails and text messages between the treasonous retards in this video which would expose the obvious insurrectionist motivations and demented thinking behind the making of this seditious call to the military/intelligence services.
We know exactly what they were implying with their use of the generic “illegal orders” and it is sedition.
Democrats have not been bashful about calling ICE “Nazis” and claiming that ICE “kidnaps” illegal aliens they are detaining, along with claiming that the militrary taking out drug boats in defense of AMerica is “breaking international law” (which doesn’t even exist), just to name a few items that we know they are referencing – none of which involve illegal orders of any sort.
We can “know” something all we want, but accusing someone of sedition without actual, you know, proof, is nothing more than sensationalism.
They put the proof right on video.
So, in a court of law, you present the video of them saying “Don’t follow ILLEGAL orders”…which is the well understood and widely recognized standard…and you expect them to be convicted of sedition?
Good luck with that.
They are inciting insurrection. ANyone with an IQ over 70 understands that.
Otherwise, one would have to take the view that they are just making a video explaining a fact of law that everyone is aware and doing it for no particular reason, since it’s something that could be mentioned in passing any time.
You have to be unable to handle human communication to not understand that they are clearly inciting insurrection among the military, spy agencies and any federal law enforcement officers .. you know, the exact people and positions that dems have been accusing of committing crimes with their legitimate duties since Trump came back into office.
No, they are not. They are in fact “just making a video explaining a fact of law that everyone is aware”. The purpose is to create the impression that Trump is likely to give illegal orders because he’s a fascist lunatic just waiting to shred the constitution, abolish elections, and make himself a king. That’s what they’ve been trying to do since he started.
Not true. They’ve been doing that for YEARS, most infamously when the traitorous worm Milley called up his Chinese handlers to tell them he would give a “heads up” if the American CiC ordered any attack on them.
Your contention that these traitors are just doing this not to incite any actual action but just to give a “heads up” to military/enforcement/intelligence personnel is laughable since if that were the case they would have done this video long ago, as democrats made yelping that Trump is “the end of democracy” their friggin main campaign issue in 2024.
But you claim, with a straight face (I assume) that they have just decided, for no particular reason, to make this dramatic incitement video now when they’ve been screaming about Trump being a “a King” for all this time (and even before).
Yeah … milhouse. Your argument wouldn’t hold water for even 4th graders. We all know why they made the video now and what their intention behind this video is – and it’s sedition, clear as day.
Yes, that’s what I said. They’ve been doing it since Trump started. It’s been one long campaign to illegitimize him, to make him out as some sort of out-of-control nazi wannabe dictator. And that is the whole purpose of this video.
They could easily have made this video at any time. Maybe they only just now thought of it. But it’s been a steady campaign to create this false picture in people’s minds of Trump and of the GOP in general.
No, they didn’t do it to give a heads up to the servicemen. They don’t care about the servicemen. They are not the target of the message. The target is the public, and the purpose is purely to add to the image they are trying to build up of Trump as a wannabe king or Caesar.
What name do you normally post under.
What does that even mean? I post under this name all the time and have been using it pretty much since the internet was invented (yes, I’m that old).
If you’re trying to accuse me of something, make yourself clear.
Ok. It seems some frequent posters will change their name to post something they’d rather not be associated with. This happens all the time when a name you’ve never seen before pops up on one article and only one article. I don’t recall your handle at all. This suggests to me you post more frequently under another handle, That’s all. It’s not a big deal and it doesn’t really matter in the larger scheme of things.
I don’t comment on every post, and I don’t comment as much as others, but I do it pretty often. I’ve gotten into some pretty good discussions with Milhouse over the past couple of years (I don’t agree with him often so when I do it’s pretty memorable) but I always use the same name and, as I said, have been for many years on many different blogs and websites. I even used to blog myself under this name, mainly on gun rights.
Incidentally, it’s derived from the fact that I was a Sailor for 21 years and my first name is Curtis (nickname Curt).
But I get why you were suspicious…many bots and trolls out there…so no harm done. I do tend to comment mostly when I disagree with something so I suppose some might consider me a troll, but I don’t think of myself that way because I’m willing to discuss things and can be convinced to change my mind when someone proves me wrong.
You reminded me of someone who I do see commented on here but he’s not as rough as your posts have been.
For the record or basically agree with Milhouse here although I’m not a lawyer. What they said was purely for political purposes. It was intemperate. It was absurd. It was insulting. They should be ashamed of themselves. They never will be which speaks to their lack of character.
I’ve seen him before.
“What they said was purely for political purposes. It was intemperate. It was absurd. It was insulting. They should be ashamed of themselves. They never will be which speaks to their lack of character.”
And that I agree with 100%
I came to the same conclusion you did when I heard this spot three or more times on talk radio. I understand that folks here like to smash the Marxists and the Marxists deserve it, but the author and most people here are reading something into this that is not there. I came to active duty at Ft. Sill in June 1971. One of the first things I did was sit through a class about this lawful order business. Can you say My Lai?
If that was the point, but they were doing something well beyond what you sat through in class.
I can say “My Lai”, but I don’t believe these senators are issuing a warning about potential unlawful orders that might be given by a 2nd Lt.
Irrelevant. Unlawful orders are unlawful orders no matter who issues them. This is not a matter of debate. Debate is only over whether or not an order is lawful.
How is this title clickbait? What did I report inaccurately?
It is clickbait, because you imply that this is sedition, and leave out the key word “unlawful”.
These lawmakers are implying the orders troops are receiving are unlawful. I thought I was hallucinating when I saw their post!
No, they’re not, they’re saying that unlawful orders might be issued.
But even if they were referring to current orders, so long as they believed those orders to actually be unlawful they would be right to urge the military to disobey them, so it couldn’t be sedition.
It is best to ignore Milhouse.
You will not be correct.
He will, with great sorrow, explain to you, at length, why the correct position is actually that of the left and it’s just so sad that no one on the right can do anything about it.
Thus, your post WAS ‘clickbait’, because the left would see it as such, as something that would hurt their position.
Go back to Hell, demon. You have never once contributed anything of value here, and you seem to exist here only to harass and defame me.
You have no right to call me a Democrat or a leftist. It is not true, and it is defamatory.
I do not call you ‘Democrat’, I simply remind all that you called yourself such.
That you sacrificed principle to pragmatism at the expense of the right that you might have a voice in shaping the left.
What do you think people who claim that ICE are “Nazis” or that ICE detaining illegal aliens constitutes “kidnapping” consider “illegal orders”??
Yes, clickbait. I waited to see if the title would be changed and am disappointed to see it is not yet corrected. If someone doesn’t take time to read the article carefully and just reads the title, we come away with a very different idea of what actually was said.
Clickbait.
I like LI because most articles come out later than other sites and usually are more accurate. Not this article.
Clickbait.
Hope it doesn’t continue.
What Milhouse said. Couldn’t have said it better.
There is absolutely no need for them to do this other than to undermine the military and use it as the latest, unpatriotic lever (or bludgeon) to use on PRESIDENT Trump and his successful administration.
I am trying to think of a single thing the Dem socialists have done FOR the country lately, but I come up empty.
I saw one comment that the statement is basically factual since military members do, in fact, have a legal obligation to refuse illegal orders.
But this statement in the beginning: “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens” is an outright lie.
Exactly. Marxists have a compulsion to lie. It’s part of their religion.
Many of the statements are outright lies:
“This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.”
LIE
“Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.”
LIE unless your referring to democrats and their pet judges.
Yes, it is a lie. These congressmen did not publish their message in good faith, or out of genuine concern for keeping the military out of legal trouble. Their entire purpose is to undermine Trump’s legitimacy by creating the false perception that he’s likely to give the military unlawful orders.
Good point. This isn’t presented as an opinion, it’s presented as a fact. They’re informing military personnel that they are, indeed, receiving unlawful orders from the administration, and that those orders should be refused. What they are asking personnel to do is entirely legal for them to do based on their own (the troops’) comprehension of what constitutes an unlawful order. But when they inform troops that they’re receiving unlawful orders, they’re influencing troops to disobey those orders when that is merely their own (the Congress persons’) opinion. This is why what they’re doing may be indefensible.
Trump needs to take action against st them
There is nothing he can do against them. They have the absolute right to speak like this. All he can do is counter their speech with the truth, but engaging them at their level would make it his word against theirs and give them more credence than they deserve.
Perhaps some retired military people could go on TV and say “Thank you, congresspeople, for your concern and your kind advice. There have been times when we have indeed had to worry about receiving illegal orders. Thankfully we now have a commander in chief who doesn’t give illegal orders, so we don’t have to worry about that any more.”
These people were making a threat to the military that they will go after them later for not refusing what they consider illegal orders..
Yet another reason to ensure they’re never again in a position to do so.
Pushing too far created a neck in the aftermath, and now they are hanging themselves with the same Jan 6 type trope.
Considering the footsoldiers of the left (illegals, vagrants etc), I expect civil war II to end with one retalitory shot, as they have nothing but violence to fall back on and will find out why we will not stand with you nor shelter you anymore.
Several in that group are hoping for higher office. The far left will see this and support them.
I suspect the DOD Appropriations Act will be filibustered over this issue.
see, now this is a problem…not a new problem but a real real realll big problem
with sanctuary cities already leading the violence with the help of the local police who willl just follow z orders
the same applies to the military
Ive had this argument for decades now with others who told me there was no way a soldier(s) would disobey commands that uphold the constitution
the bbc and others had to edit>>lie that trump ordered encouraged etc a riot on jan 6 and they the left not only demanded his head but followed through on subterfuge in the courts to weaponize sentencing that made trespassers to be subjected to incarceration wayyy longer than any poc who
crashed into stores and robbed them without fear of punishment
NOW THIS??
This is absolutely the call for seditious acts
A major hasan type thrives in this type of environment
again,,,, the bbc>>msm concocted a lie that had trump and other patriots in the crosshairs of the doj
while these dems are not under the threat of their statements being anything other than what they are stating
In 2008, according to FBI gang investigator Jennifer Simon, 1 to 2% of the U.S. military belonged to gangs, which is 50 to 100 times the rate in the general population.[1] According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment, the NGIC identified members of more than 53 gangs who served in the military.[2] U.S. gangs have sometimes encouraged their members to join the military in order to learn warfare techniques.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_presence_in_the_United_States_military
I would believe that number has grown based on the “principles” of dei hiring etc
the arabs flew our own planes into our buildings on 911
it might not be or have to be arabs that do it again as these lefty pos are encouraging that violence
This is clearly sedition. These weasels try to get around it by not giving any details as to what the “illegal orders” they are talking about are, but we all know what they are talking about and those are completely legitimate and IMPORTANT orders that these traitors are trying to influence some military, intelligence, and enforcement personnel to disobey. The dems have called ICe “Nazis”, claimed that ICE “kidnaps” illegal aliens it detains, claims that the US needs to provide specific evidence before performing any military operation in defense of the nation, claims that the US breaks international law (which doesn’t even exist!), and on and on. These are the “illegal orders” that the Dem Senate Traitors are trying to get personnel to disobey. This is sedition.
Recall all the military among them to active duty and try them in a military tribunal. Arrest and charge the rest in civilian court.
First of all we don’t know what orders they’re referring to. They say if you get an illegal order you have to disobey it, which is of course true.
But even if they meant orders that are in fact lawful and must be obeyed, they can’t be charged with anything. “Sedition” can’t be a crime, because it’s protected speech. The Sedition Acts of the 1790s were unconstitutional, and so were the ones Wilson used in WW1. The courts have said time and again that mere advocacy can never be illegal. And they have clearly not crossed the line into incitement, which requires the Brandenburg elements.
Their message is political, and must be addressed politically. The counter message should be that having a president who might at any moment give an illegal order is indeed a problem, so isn’t it wonderful that we now have a president whom we can trust not to do that.
That seditious video, combined with the positions (and former positions) of the participants in the video certainly satisfies both of these criteria. Given the number of people they are trying to push to insurrection; given what we have already seen among nutjob leftists going postal against conservatives or any American enforcing American law, the chances of some being moved to these actions is very high. Disobeying orders in many circumstances can lead to dangers to others who might be depending on the actions.
No, it does not satisfy the criteria, and there are three criteria, not two.
It must be both intended and likely to cause imminent commission of a crime. That’s three. Talking about a hypothetical and unspecified illegal order that hasn’t even been made yet clearly can’t be imminent, even you could prove that they knew the order was in fact going to be legal, which of course you can’t.
Isn’t Elissa Slotkin a former CIA officer? That woman scares me.
expect to see a lawsuit but notttt against her but against Pete H and the DoW
when the commander refuses to allow a fighter pilot to run a mission b/c that pilot has shown a preference for following the dems
will there now be a “litmus” test need to be given out ? so that we can “assume” ( and we know what that means) that the pilot will in fact carry out their mission and attack the “correct” enemy…….not the ones the dems tell us our the real enemy
didnt pelosi jsut say that trump is the real enemy…the real threat,, the worst man on the planet!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!
btw,, thisss story should take front and center for a few days
slutkin will probably walk it back saying she was misquoted and was taken out of context and blah blah fn blah
Brief qualifier…. anything not sanctioned by the Democrat Party is illegal.
Finally a real charge of insurrection can be made.
I know I live a VERY long way from all this but; 6 Congress possums (intentional) I’ve never heard of before?
I love how they throw the Marines, Coast Guard, and Space Force under the bus. I guess they don’t have their backs.
And what;s with the Don’t Give up the Ship. What do they mean in this context. Yes I can get what they might mean but is there some institutional context I’m not aware of or is Slotkin just off her meds again?
No Kings, urging troops to disobey orders and calling for the death of your opponents.
Damn, can we ask them to toss the mask away?
No, they are not calling for insurrection. Their words were very clear: servicemen should only disobey illegal orders. And they are correct. A serviceman who knows an order to be illegal must refuse it, and if he doesn’t he will be convicted.
You linked to and quoted from streiff’s article, but left out these parts (italics added):
“(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the subordinate’s peril. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.”
and:
“(d) Obedience to orders. It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.”
And as William Calley’s example shows, it is not a defense to claim that you are a person below ordinary sense and understanding, and therefore didn’t know the order was unlawful. If an ordinary person would have known, you are guilty for obeying it even if you didn’t know.
So no, these congressmen are not trying to induce insurrection. Their goal is not military, it’s purely political. They have no intention of causing servicemen to disobey orders and go to prison; their intention is to create an impression that Trump is likely to give blatantly illegal orders, which top-level officers will have the duty to disobey. This is part of their general campaign to paint the Trump administration as lawless, and therefore in some sense illegitimate. It goes with the whole “Trump is a convicted felon” shtick.
That their message may cause confusion and distress among actual servicemen receiving orders that they might now start worrying about is not their intent, but they also don’t care. If it causes some to hesitate in their duty and end up getting killed, they’re not happy about that, but they don’t care. They don’t care about servicemen at all, and have no problem exploiting them for political gain.
I disagree. This is not a public service announcement made annually but rather it is put out as highly suggestive that there are currently issued illegal orders that should be disobeyed. Although the video stays clear of explicitly so stating but the inferences are very clear.
Of course it’s not made annually; it’s meant to imply that we have a president who is a fascist and is unstable and is likely to give illegal orders, and is therefore not a legitimate president.
So they’re questioning the results of an election? Isn’t that grounds for removal from office? (Their rules.)
So I take it from your response that currently all of this administration’s orders to the military have been legal. And that the concern is that there might be an illegal order at some point in the future because of some unsupported assertion that orangemanbad is a fascist and is unstable. Are you suggesting that securing the borders from illegal crossings and drug smuggling, providing local law enforcement with federal assistance, deporting illegal aliens, the vast majority of the detained or deported have exhibited criminal behavior, and cleansing the military from racist doctrinaire teachings is headed anywhere except the continued upholding of federal law and the security of our country?
This president is most certainly legitimate, whether or not one voted for him. You of course are entitled to your opinion but not your facts. Even then VP Harris certified the legitimacy of DJT’s election. I get that DJT method’s, action’s, or statement’s are not in accordance with everyone’s expectations, but the loyal opposition should be just that – loyal rather than subversive. Releasing this video to clearly attempt to circumvent the chain of command is, in my view, out of bounds and sets a dangerous precedent.
Frankly, I take offense at the suggestion by the video of some dark nefarious orders or soon to be orders. If there is such a concern, then express this explicitly in Congress or in speeches to the public based on facts and data rather than worries.
For full disclosure – I am a Marine vet.
I believe so.
Exactly. Though I would put scare quotes around “concern”.
Didn’t you know that he plans to cancel the next election and declare martial law? I’ve heard that accusation against every single president since 2000, both Republicans and Democrats (each time leveled by supporters of the other party). It’s always been obvious nonsense, but it keeps coming up.
Grab a sword and lead the charge for the Marxists
“illegal orders”
guysssssss
you are ignoring something huge here when you say they only said
disregard “illegal orders”
the left has made it abundantly clear that definitions /genders the constitution itself is fluid in its meanings
so b/c feelings are more important than( hence dei ) facts
“my truth” is more important than facts
THAT and that alone gives the power to the misrepresentation to what is an “illegal” order
IOW,,if you dont agree with the order..its illegal
but dont dare say “illegal” immigrant
b/c no person is “illegal”
It’s a coup. slutkin and her “are you going to follow the law” crap is simply a talking point to use in a campaign for moral superiority, but I’d like to see her put on trial for sedition and get the maximum penalty.
Has anyone else noticed spamburger of Va and slutkin of Mi are former CIA “analysts”? How many more are there? If you’re looking for a coup, maybe tear the cia apart. They aren’t what they used to be I’d guess.
From a while ago:
https://medium.com/@UlisseRJ/open-letter-to-grads-from-ltc-ret-heffington-659dac71511f
Before you read any further, please understand that the following paragraphs come from a place of intense devotion and loyalty to West Point.
————
The recent coverage of 2LT Spenser Rapone — an avowed Communist and sworn enemy of the United States — dramatically highlighted this disturbing trend. Given my recent tenure on the West Point faculty and my direct interactions with Rapone, his “mentors,” and with the Academy’s leadership, I believe I can shed light on how someone like Rapone could possibly graduate.
First and foremost, standards at West Point are nonexistent. They exist on paper, but nowhere else. The senior administration at West Point inexplicably refuses to enforce West Point’s publicly touted high standards on cadets, and, having picked up on this, cadets refuse to enforce standards on each other. The Superintendent refuses to enforce admissions standards or the cadet Honor Code, the Dean refuses to enforce academic standards, and the Commandant refuses to enforce standards of conduct and discipline.
Click the link for the entire letter.
This is just more garbage ahead of the midterms that Trump is an out of control dictator who doesn’t care about the constitution or laws. It’s building the narrative of him being “an existential threat to our democracy” with no proof that he is
These clowns should go live in an actual authoritarian country for a year or two and then get back to us.
Exactly. That is exactly what it is. Their message is not aimed at the military, it’s aimed at the public. The military is just a tool being cynically used for political gain.
If this doesn’t work, congressional Democrats will resort to parading about with “Arrest Me” signs around their necks. The goal here is to trigger another “constitutional crisis” by provoking a response. It’s the same tactic used by terrorists. So that’s nifty.
You know, this video is prime territory for mockery. Put clown makeup and clothes on the idiots digitally, subtitle the video with the real meaning of their words “We want Americans to believe you are horrible people for joining the military. If you disobey an order, we’ll cheer your actions but won’t raise a finger to protect you. Do something stupid so we can be reelected. We’re going to chop your pay and throw you in jail the first chance we get. etc…”
I recently read a couple of books by an ex-Seal who basically had more than a dozen deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. From it I got the impression our military is so infested with JAG and they govern so much of what can be done that a private can’t take a crap without getting their approval in triplicate. If true this suggests it may well be impossible for illegal orders to be issued because there are a zillion lawyers in place to prevent it. Hell it seems like it might be difficult to issue legal orders these days.
Let’s also not forget the billions of lawyers infesting all of government. Many of these lawyers exist to prevent illegal orders from being issued.
These six congress critters are seriously deranged if they think illegal orders are being issued. They are absolutely un-American to suggest they have been and I don’t give a fig about their prior service. Their comments are completely self-serving and nothing more than another attempt to undermine Trump, They should be called out repeatedly until they explicitly state what orders are illegal and why,
They don’t think illegal orders are being issued, nor are they seriously concerned that any will be issued. Their purpose is to create the false impression that that is a risk.
Not at all. Their purpose is to convince weak military and intelligence personnel to disobey lawful orders in order to throw America into a deadly chaotic situation – a fatal one, if they have their way.
They are calling for insurrection. Clearly.
Wouldn’t a ‘clear call for insurrection’ be stated with …clarity… and explicitly make use of the term? Something like:
‘Orange Man Bad is a despot issuing unlawful orders and every military service member must rise up in defiance, loot the armory, roll the tanks to DC to put down the Orange Man Bad regime’
These d/prog are definitely opposed to Trump, probably do want to ‘fundamentally transform America’ and likely hold 2/3 of the Nation in contempt. I have little doubt that if military members did stage a coup to put d/prog in charge these guys wouldn’t waste any time on the morality of it but would eagerly take the offered crown.
Here they didn’t do those things. Instead they are creating/extending the ‘narrative’ of Orange Man Bad’ to sneakily infer that Trump has or may issue unlawful orders but the message is really aimed at their lunatic lefty/woke mob base as a sort of ritualized offering. That’s not the definition for sedition and we can’t prosecute them for it.
Yes, Democrat, they DO. From their statement–
This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.
Not ‘may be’
Not ‘at some time in the future this might happen’
IS.
And that IS a lie.
A seditious lie.
And the only reason you will not see it is that you are on their side.
Drop dead, you filthy liar.
Yes, they lied. They’re Democrats. Like you, they lie. But their lie doesn’t and can’t constitute sedition, because sedition itself is not and can’t be a crime unless it crosses the line into incitement. And they came nowhere near that line. They did not even advocate disobeying lawful orders, only hypothetical unlawful ones, which if they were ever issued must be disobeyed. But they won’t be, and these people know that, which is their lie.
IS.
Not ‘maybe’.
Stop YOUR endless lies.
They said the administration IS pitting the military against civilians –which IS illegal.
And THEN they said they advocating treating their lie like the truth and acting on it.
Lie more about it, Democrat.
And we have these statements recorded and produced on video. Quick poll: How many reading this truly believe there will EVER be ANY legal consequences for ANY of those involved, or any of the the other nefarious actors since 2016? (Process crimes don’t count)
I’m glad the Feld hire Slotkin is barren and too old to change.
I’m not a lawyer, and I’ve never been in the military; but from my perspective, it was abhorrent behavior on the part of these senators. At a minimum, they should be disciplined for having done it. Our politicians have gone off the deep end, and I am disgusted with all of them. They certainly aren’t “leaders”. I want my money back.