Under Questioning By, Surprisingly, the Leftwing Media, Democrats Admit They Can't Name Any Illegal Orders Trump Has Issued

Seditious Senator Mark Kelly, who's currently under investigation for a possible court martial for urging US troops to defy their Commander in Chief, ran to Rachel Maddow to whip up the hard left to support him.

Even there, though, he was forced to admit that Trump never issued an illegal order.

MADDOW: "When you and your colleagues made that video, were there specific, potentially illegal orders that you were thinking about that were the sort of precipitating cause for you guys to get together and do that?"

KELLY: "Here's the thing, Rachel. You don't want to wait for your kid to get hit by a car before you tell them to look both ways."

So he's admitting he's urging troops to defy the Commander in Chief based on their own guess as to what is or is not an illegal order, and even threatening that a future Democrat president may imprison them for not defying Trump -- and this is all based on nothing except the always-present hypothetical possibility that an illegal order could, maybe, possibly be issued in the future.

AWFL and CIA C*nt Elissa Slotkin likewise admitted no illegal orders had been issued to ABC's cadaverous wallflower Martha Raddatz.

At JusttheNews, Jerry Dunleavy writes about the threat Democrats are making to prosecute troops for obeying the duly-elected Constitutional Commander-in-Chief.

'Sedition'? Democrat bid to foment Trump resistance inside U.S. military draws blowback

Democrats also made thinly-veiled threats that U.S. troops and spies will be in legal jeopardy if they don't defy such alleged orders.

Democrats released a video last Tuesday purporting to support U.S. service members and intelligence officers who would defy illegal orders, but some of those Democrats have also made thinly-veiled threats that U.S. troops and spies will be in legal jeopardy if they don't defy such alleged orders.

The half dozen Democrats from the House and Senate -- five of them veterans of of the U.S. military and one a former CIA analyst -- released a video that argued that "you must refuse illegal orders" and professed to servicemembers that "we have your back."

But a number of the Democrats in the video have strongly implied that troops who don't disobey orders that the Democrats believe to be illegal could face criminal prosecution, with the Democrats conjuring warnings tied to prior prosecutions of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, of U.S. Marines in the film A Few Good Men, of troops stationed at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and of soldiers involved in the My Lai massacre in South Vietnam, implying current U.S. troops could face the same fate.

The congressional Democrats were also not on the same page about whether the U.S. military was currently engaging in illegal activities, with some Democrats admitting that they were not sure if any current U.S. military actions were illegal, while others have previously said or are currently saying that U.S. troop deployments to American cities and U.S. strikes against Venezuelan drug-running boats are illegal.

...

The Democrats released a joint statement on Thursday saying, "What's most telling is that the President considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law. Our service members should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders."

Secretary of the Department of War Pete Hegseth said on X on Monday that five of the six Democrats in the video don't fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of War and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) because "one is CIA and four are former military but not 'retired', so they are no longer subject to UCMJ" but that "Mark Kelly (retired Navy Commander) is still subject to UCMJ -- and he knows that."

...

The video continued: "Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders. 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 that 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, don't give up, don't give up, don't give up the ship!"

The six Democratic congressional offices did not immediately respond to requests for comment sent to them by Just the News.

A number of the Democrats in the video have suggested that U.S. troops could be prosecuted for following purportedly illegal orders issued by President Trump or Secretary Hegseth. As of publication time, none of the orders issued by either Trump or Hegseth have been declared "illegal" by any court or authoritative body of law.

Houlahan told MSNBC on Saturday that the point of the video was to tell U.S. service members that "we've got your back." But this message was seemingly diluted by other Democrats in the video hinting at potential prosecutions.

Slotkin appeared Sunday on ABC News' This Week talking about how U.S. service members can figure out whether an order is illegal, and the Democratic senator immediately brought up the Nuremberg trials against Nazi war criminals and the movie A Few Good Men where Marines are prosecuted at Guantánamo Bay.

"I don't -- I mean, going back to Nuremberg, right, that 'well, they told me to do it, that's why I murdered people' is not an excuse. If you look at popular culture, like, you watch, you know, A Few Good Men, like we have plenty of examples since World War II, in Vietnam, where people were told to follow illegal orders, and they did it, and they were prosecuted for it," Slotkin said. "So, the best thing for people to do is go to their JAG [judge advocate general] officer, their local law enforcement, or a legal officer in their unit, and ask for some explanation, ask for help. And that's what we've been advising people to do."

J.D. Vance called the Democrats' demand that troops guess which orders are illegal and defy those orders they guess are illegal an illegal suggestion itself, because the military specifically forbids troops guessing whether orders or legal or not. The military only says troops may defy orders that are manifestly illegal, -- obviously illegal, on-its-face illegal, no question about it illegal -- not "possibly illegal" or "arguably illegal" or "Rachel Maddow told me it was illegal."

Otherwise, think about it: Military orders mean nothing. Every single troop would be empowered to refuse any order, claiming that in his personal, private estimation, he thought it might be illegal.

***

How is everyone? Do you have your shopping done?

I'm getting posts done now so I can go out in an hour and pick up some stuff for Thanksgiving.

posted by Ace at 12:10 PM

| Access Comments