Slotkin Drops Stunning New Explanation for Releasing ‘Seditious Six’ Video
“There [were] so many people coming to us, who were on active duty … saying … I’m going to be asked to do things I either don’t think are legal or I’m not trained for. What do I do?”
During a recent interview with the far-Left Daily Beast, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), one of six Democratic lawmakers who collaborated on the infamous video telling service members they have a duty to refuse “unlawful orders,” made an extraordinary claim. She said they felt compelled to act because:
There [were] so many people coming to us, who were on active duty who — recent veterans, family members of service members — who were coming to us individually and saying two things: One, ‘I’m concerned I’m going to sent in uniform to an American city, you know, like L.A., Chicago, Memphis, and I’m going to be asked to do things I either don’t think are legal or I’m not trained for. What do I do?
And then, this fall, it really turned and it became a lot of people who were involved in the operations, um, around the Caribbean asking those same things. ‘Hey, I’m not sure — I don’t know if this is legal. I don’t know if I’d be held accountable later after this administration. I can’t get a straight answer about whether this is legal or not. What do you think we should do?’
So we were hearing that. There was a lot of juju in the system on that for months. And that’s why we made the video, just restating the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Elissa Slotkin claims Democrats made the ‘illegal orders’ video because a slew of military personnel were coming to them with concerns for months:
“I don't know if this is legal. I don't know if I'd be held accountable later after this administration. I can't get a straight… pic.twitter.com/Fe2AMPvMRg
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) December 8, 2025
It is remarkable that, after three full weeks of scrambling to defend that misguided, unprecedented video, the best Slotkin could offer was anonymous sources.
Given that Democrats — and much of the legacy media — frequently base their most sensational claims on anonymous sourcing, I’m sure this explanation will play just fine with the party’s base.
It more than satisfied The Daily Beast, whose headline for the segment blared, Why Troops Are Blowing Whistle on Trump: Senator. The outlet reported, “military personnel have expressed anguish to her over carrying out questionable orders since then.”
For many of us, though, it’s far too flimsy an excuse for what we’ve already interpreted as a seditious act — merely the latest move in what is plainly the Democrats’ broader, calculated effort to undermine the Trump administration. [They are almost certainly doing the same thing with the rest of the bureaucracy just not as publicly.]
Her latest remarks also contradict her first public comments following the video’s release.
— Joni Job (@jj_talking) December 8, 2025
If any of the six members of Congress genuinely believed the Trump administration’s drug-boat strikes were illegal, they had legitimate avenues for raising those concerns. As John Lucas — a veteran who has served as both an Army Ranger and a Special Forces Green Beret — explained on his Substack blog, there were several more “honorable alternatives” they could have pursued.
If the Gang of 6 were honestly concerned about the troops’ welfare and thought that they needed a reminder about the laws of armed conflict and unlawful or lawful orders, these professed public servants had a viable and proper alternative. They could have approached the Judge Advocate Generals for each military service, and requested, in a non-partisan way, that they take appropriate steps to ensure that the subject of was being adequately addressed in both initial and ongoing training for all service members. They could have had a candid conversation that avoided creating the turmoil that has been caused – likely intentionally – by their video that has now been seen by millions of viewers.
But they forsook any chance of such a candid and potentially productive exchange with their glory-seeking video that comes perilously close to the line of attempting to instigate a mutiny.
But these Democrats, who truly couldn’t care less about the lives (or deaths) of the crew members transporting drugs to the U.S., chose a different path — one far more disingenuous and dangerous. And Lucas laid this out clearly in his essay.
It is an effort to create plausible deniability as a misleading subterfuge. Their slick video production is not an innocent civics lesson for ignorant troops who somehow need additional instruction in military law. It is, in fact, an effort to undermine the President, to encourage disobedience of his orders, to sow chaos in the ranks, and to promote continued lawfare and turmoil in the military, all of which is intended to hamstring this President because they disagree with his policies.
Sorry senator, nice try, but few Americans are buying your latest lies.
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.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“There [were] so many people coming to us, who were on active duty . . .”
They really expect us to believe this stuff.
If true, Ds, lets have the names, and none of this nonsense of protecting their privacy.
harris got darn near 50% of the vote, I’d bet slutkin is lying.
Believe the democrap base will not only buy into the bullschiff they’ll trumpet it all over the internet and legacy media.
MSDNC fans will buy it hook, line, and sinker.
MSDNC fans will buy it Crook, Swine, and Stinker.
Yea, my first thought after reading that was; “I’ll take stuff that didn’t happen for 1000, Alex.”
“There [were] so many people coming to us, who were on active duty . . .”
And these people came exclusively to Democrats.
“Inconceivable!”
Good catch.
I’m reasonably certain that her degree in sociology does not qualify her to practice law.
She’s dumb as a sack of hammers. Why does any of this not surprise me?
She’s dumb alright. But why the rag on hammers? I have a whole passel o them, and they all seem to be very smart and usephul. Every one o them will bang the nail all the way in without any muss or miss. Whe when I miss, a rriy, all I have to do is turn the hammer round and the intelligent obedient claws pull the dud right out, no muss. I dunno, maybe I just happened to round up are an unusually smart lot o hammers over the past semi-century. ‘Maybe we should round up a whole herd o hammers at least halph as smart as mine are and have them go to work on this ugly piece o work. She DOES need some “education”, whether by the Board o same or by the whip, or even by hammers much smarter than she is. Which I am inclined o believe are most o them out there.
They got way over their skies and now complain about falling down the mountain.
It was a psy op created in Langley by her former colleagues…..and that says it all.
It’s why they ran her and others for office.
Just remember that she was an analyst, not the secret squirrel covert operative they want people to think she was.
Big Business Management and government norm: “Screw up, move up.”
Does anybody believe this is anything but an excuse to try to get out from under the sh*t storm they stirred up? As with the media, if they won’t name names, I’m not willing to believe them.
Smells like bullshit.
“[T]here were several more “honorable alternatives” they could have pursued.”
Elizabeth, these are democrats we’re talking about here.
They view honor as a vampire views sunlight.
They are only honorable if it is expedient (which for them is rare).
Sorry about the unintended downvote.
(Meant to be an upvote.)
I believe that you can click the downvote to undo it.
They’re gaslighting, trying to make this Astroturfed operation look like grassroots.
As far as “I’m going to be asked to do things…I’m not trained for,” this is not a valid reason to refuse an order. You can inform your superior you’re not trained (so that he may decide to have someone else do it), but if he insists it’s called OJT. You’re obligated to do your best to accomplish the mission. (Slotkin, with her CIA background, may not even know this.)
In AIT, was ordered by a drill sergeant to drive a jeep. I informed him that I didn’t know how to drive a stick and didn’t have the (required) license. He said, “Get in the jeep and drive.” I said, “Yes, drill sergeant.” I drove (in the dark) that jeep back to the motor pool in a convoy of vehicles. I learned to drive a stick that night.
Later, as a sergeant myself, with no special training in nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare defense, I was made our company’s NBC NCO, responsible for training company personnel in NBC (as it was called then) defense and the maintenance of our NBC equipment. I had three months to get ready for an AGI. Of course, I couldn’t tell the company first sergeant “No.” I dove in, and scored 95% in the inspection.
Dave, I can’t believe you were able to drive a stick on your first try! You should have seen me trying to learn. It takes practice. 😁
The M151 “jeep” was probably very forgiving, as it’s made to be used roughly. You could also start from a start in 2nd gear. First gear was really for difficult situations that required the very low gear.
I had tried once before to drive a stick, a Ford Maverick. I didn’t put too much effort into it and failed miserably. The Ford had it’s stick on the steering column, the jeep had its stick on the floor. That may have made a difference too.
Same here, at a Germany deployment. Car with a column shift and a “cargo” of high-ranking officers. I survived…
When I was 21, I bought a Mustang with a manual transmission and taught myself how to drive it. Luckily, it was difficult to kill the engine but easy
to spin the wheels.
In the AF we were told to read the TO (technical order) and get with someone who was trained to work on whatever needed working on. It wasn’t hard or complicated.
.
Does the phrase “so many” qualify as a statistic? Because she’s gone way beyond lies and damn lies!
Reminds me of the Thompson Twins hit “Lies”
Except servicemen receive training on exactly what to do, and to not substitute their own biases for what is actually legal or illegal.
If that training stopped, why did the Biden junta stop it?
Democrats Plot FAILS Mark Kelly’s Secret Plan COLLAPSES After FBI Finds Key Link | Victor D. Hanson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dTpwV2_G60
That video is 100% AI.
The message was aimed at trannies and queers in the military, their political arm.
If the Dem’s lips are moving, they’re lying. They are completely devoid of moral values!
Especially the ones who made this video.
“Elissa Slotkin claims Democrats made the ‘illegal orders’ video because a slew of military personnel were coming to them with concerns for months”
And so, being former CIA, she wanted this video to be addressed to the CIA as well as military. No doubt Slotkin wanted CIA operatives to be alerted not to obey illegal orders like spying on Trump, or abusing FISA etc, etc.
What I really like this week was Jeh Johnson’s OPED in the NYT saying that all targetted killings aren’t the same. This from one of the guys who OK’d Obama droning a known US citizen when he was General Counsil at the Pentagon.
Anyone in the military who had such concerns would be consulting lawyers, not Democrat congressmen.
And the lawyers would be advising them that if you know an order is illegal, or if it’s so obviously illegal that you should have known, then you must disobey it and can be charged for obeying it; but if you don’t know whether it’s legal, and it’s not obviously illegal, then you are safe following it and if you’re ever charged you will have a valid defense that you were following orders.
No, as I have been arguing from the very beginning, the video was never aimed at actual servicemen. It was never intended to influence them in any way. Its target was the general public, and its purpose was to convince us, who are not in the military, that Trump is a dangerous lunatic, Literally Hitler,™ who is likely at any moment to give orders of the kind that were tried at Nuremberg. And that the only solution is to vote Democrat next year and in 2028.
That is just ridiculous and, dare I say, completely retarded. And that’s being charitable and giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your motivation behind pushing this laughable theory.
He’s right. This video was gaslighting, pure and simple.
She is definitely NOT correct.
If you believe that they had no intention to foment an insurrection among the military then I don’t even know what to say. You, evidently, have not been watching what the left’s been doing this entire time. The same people who started torching Teslas, tried to actually impoverish and imprison Trump and everyone associated with him, the same people who tried to burn the country down … yeah … they weren’t trying to turn the military against Trump .. they were just messing around.
That’s retarded.
Actually, in the original video Slotkin and Kelly initially said “CAN refuse”, not “MUST”.
LOL. Complete bullsh*t. Provable by the video, itself. THey stated very clearly and directly in the video,
“This administration is pitting our uniform military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.”
That was the main thrust of the seditious propaganda piece. Not anything about the Uniform Code of Military Justice or anything about specific illegal orders but a direct and explicit accusation that the military and intel were BEING used against American citizens.
This was obviously nothing but a piece of treasonous propaganda attempting to foment mutiny or insurrection among the troops and intel community.
The UCMJ says that obviously unlawful orders must be refused, and the individual soldier can be court martialed for obeying such an order. But the video heads were generally correct – “can” is appropriate because “must” doesn’t apply to all situations (applying only to obviously unlawful orders).
CIA agent lies to the American people while committing treason.
Shocker.
Sick lying c*nt
Seditious Slotkin: Former CIA desk jockey and current exemplar of Washington as Hollywood for ugly people.
So… they went to her because they were afraid the democrats would prosecute them in Nuremberg style trials if they won the congress?
The same concept applies to ALL activities of the government. What should the FEMA worker do when given the order not to help people who have Trump signs on their property?
I find this interesting – “…..so many people coming to us, who were on active duty who — recent veterans, family members of service members — who were coming to us individually….” She states on ACTIVE DUTY then innumerates those that HAVE served or family, basically ignoring what she just said.
This issue is answered in Basic Training – you will follow orders. Even if you disagree with them, there is specific reason or design behind them. It there becomes an issue, the chain of command is responsible, not you.
These Dems never brought anything against Obama or Biden when they were doing things that hurt non-Americans via the military or got military hurt. They tend to not bring up massive illegal aliens flooding into the country under Biden and drugs coming into the country.
These people play to the MSM to keep their positions. In reality they only are doing this as “We do not want Trump” and “Have nothing else in the Democrat Plans” so this is why you must vote for us.
Another avenue is to request from the Service Inspectors General whether they have had any inquiries or investigations opened because of troop complaints. They don’t have to name anyone but they could give aggregate numbers (if they exist, which I doubt).
JAGs these days are involved in almost every strike decision unless it’s a long standing blanket opinion, usually reflected in Rules of Engagement. It is/was so in the deployments to cities and the strikes against the designated terrorist organizations.
As I and others have said, the narco-terrorists are flooding our country with chemical poisons that kill the equivalent of two VN wars every year. If a nation-state was smuggling Sarin (GB) or Soman (GD) nerve agents into the US and killing 100k+ per year, we’d be throwing everything in the arsenal at them. The narco-terrorists don’t operate according to the Law of War or the Geneva conventions, which treaties operate on the concept of reciprocity. Since the narc0-terrorists want to operate in the gray area outside the LoW or GC, we can accommodate them.
Which has an answer greater than zero:
Military personnel going to congress to express concern about orders that were never given may be illegal, or
Military personnel five years ago expressing a concern about being ordered to take an experimental vaccine.
Just remember, she worked for The Agency. Anything she says should be taken with the same grain of salt that one would give a Chi-Com spy.
I fully believe that she’s getting those comments/questions from people in the military. I watch a lot of LEO videos on youtube (sorry it’s an addiction, learning a lot about something I had no experience with) and it’s jaw dropping how folks will inform the cops what their rights are and what the law is. They have not only put together an incorrect set of beliefs, they feel they are justified in “correcting” trained professionals. So yeah, I fully believe there are people in the military who think they know best and have the right to refuse to do things that don’t suit their ideology. Unfortunately it doesn’t go well for the folks who challenge LEOs and it shouldn’t go well for those people in the military either. We have a couple of generations of very entitled child-adults. If they stopped being automatons they might learn self-discipline and find a path to happiness.
CIA asset’s plan collapses, Asset tries obfuscation.
Film at 11
Another poor excuse for being a traitor