The drama of the “illegal orders” six
Six members of Congress made a video telling members of the military to disobey any illegal orders from Trump. Now the FBI is investigating them to see what may have prompted this action, since the six didn’t cite any illegal orders he had made:
Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan confirmed the investigation on social media.
“The President directing the FBI to target us is exactly why we made this video in the first place. He believes in weaponizing the federal government against his perceived enemies and does not believe laws apply to him or his Cabinet,” she wrote. “He uses legal harassment as an intimidation tactic to scare people out of speaking up.”
Anyone who’s followed the events of the last ten or so years might find that bleakly humorous. Obviously, unless Slotkin is a time-traveler, the FBI’s present investigation can’t be the reason they made the statement. As for past use of “weaponizing the federal government against perceived enemies,” the Democrats are the champions at that.
Also:
“All servicemembers are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the [Uniform Code of Military Justice] to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful,” the Defense Department said in a statement. “A servicemember’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.”
That’s restating the basic principle, with the addition of the idea that orders are presumed to be lawful.
People in the military already know they can refuse illegal orders. However, there was absolutely no need for this reminder; the goal was obviously to stir things up in the military and cause trouble for Trump. But his calling the six “traitorous” and saying they broke the law is hyperbole, IMHO, and only gives them ammunition to play the righteous victims. And that’s exactly what they’re doing.
Neo writes: “But his calling the six “traitorous” and saying they broke the law is hyperbole, IMHO, and only gives them ammunition to play the righteous victims. And that’s exactly what they’re doing.”
Perfectly stated.
The UCMJ is a whole different animal, I wonder if the Democrats realize that.
“traitorous” is not the correct term but “sedition” fits. Not a death penalty offense but does support long prison terms; these are congress-critters who swore an oath. A definite violation of that oath.
Just in general, it’s time to see some impeachments and convictions for what’s been going on since that Kenyan was put in office.
What Barack Obama knows of Kenya is what you’d learn on a guided tour.
==
The thesis offered by a lawyer with whom I correspond is that it’s a veiled threat to the military that they’ll be prosecuted by the Democrats in the future if they obey orders from DJT.
Didn’t think of that Art, but it certainly fits.
Trump doesn’t sit back and take it anymore. For good or bad.
Trump’s comments put a laser on what many would have wrongly ignored, so now it’s getting coverage from Gutfeld to obscure blogs. And the result might be libs watch their mouth in the future instead of rattling off to their base with no consequences.
I under stand *most* would avoid the hyperbole, but there is no change to the position of their leftiat supporters with his response, and ignoring is what allowed liberals to run free without consequences for so long.
It’s well-planned plausibly deniable sedition. They know exactly what they are doing and the response that they would likely get. It’s reprehensible even if it’s not illegal.
I agree with DT and the lawyer Art Deco talked about, with a side note that on this occasion I am allllll out of pearls to clutch. Even if I were inclined to quibble with the tone and phrasing Trump has, that is missing the point. What these six sacks of shit did is repulsive, evil, and dangerous. They did know exactly what they were doing. Moreover, they did not merely direct soldiers to not follow illegal orders, they asserted a host of things about Trump and this administration, against the backdrop of Neo-Confederate asswipes trying to assert their superiority over Federal jurisdiction with things like banning masks for LEOs (and pretending it will apply to ICE) and explicit threats to prosecute those following orders from this administration. That this was made against the backdrop of violence and attempts to kill law enforcement and government officials up to and including Trump speaks to the irresponsibility.
This cannot stand. I am reminded of Mark Steyn’s comments regarding the UK and Canada to the lines of one side can hold office, but the other side holds power. That as far as I can tell these six did not say anything about Biden or stand up for their own constituents regarding things like the jab or about enforcing border laws but will do this is inflammatory. The Commander in Chief is by law and legal precedent far before that of the Constitution garbed in awesome and terrible powers, not unlimited but vast. This is an attempt to interfere with that. And we need to decide if we are going to have a professional and ostensibly nonpartisan national military, or a party military with public funding. And if the former, examples need to be made.
Make examples of them. Recall them to service. Court martial them. Cashier them. Humiliate them. Do it publicly, do it with due process protection a January 6th Defendant would envy, but do it. There needs to be a message that goes down in time for decades to make any scumbag that so much as thinks of pulling a stunt like this has to think three times.
I also have to reiterate that this was a threat. It also was an incredible cruelty to what these six would claim are fellow service people by trying to make them go beyond second guessing by making them look over their shoulders in fear, and by clogging JAG and other legal representative organizations. It is despicable and should be regarded as such.
Turtler:
I agree that what they did was despicable, etc.. The question is whether it was illegal – and if so or if not, what would be the remedies. Slotkin never served in the military, and so military courts and the like would not be appropriate for her as a civilian.
As for the others, they are former military. Yes, they could be recalled and court-martialed, technically speaking. But in my opinion that would only serve to make them martyrs and give the left a ton of ammunition to call Trump a tyrant. I think the offense would have to be even bigger to justify such action.
…From the party that brought you the Afghanistan debacle—though of course they blamed Trump for THAT—and then decided to play footsie with the Taliban…because…because…
well why not?THAT is what the Democrats DO…in their never-ending quest—LUST—for national, state, municipal and, especially, personal destruction.(Nor would one wish to forget the war in Ukraine…or the FACT that “the Middle-East hasn’t been this peaceful in over twenty years …”)
The gang that couldn’t (even) lie straight?
OTOH, with the media running impressive, non-stop interference and the Obama judiciary providing timely support, maybe you don’t have to worry about any of the lying.
(IOW, Mark Twain’s timely advice regarding why it’s preferable to tell the truth is, for DPOTUS, a total non sequitur….)
And in other “news”, Just one more reason why Kamala Harris HAD TO WIN the 2024 election…..
“Michigan wasted millions on deceased Medicaid enrollees”—
https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/report-michigan-wasted-millions-deceased-medicaid-enrollees
The statement by the Six does not meet the legal definition of Seditious Conspiracy: “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”
Note that the words ‘by force’ is used multiple times. Arguably, to be guilty of sedition, force must be involved. So too with insurrection.
They are however clearly guilty of
’18 U.S. Code § 2387 – Activities affecting armed forces generally’
“(a)Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
(1)advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or
(2)distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
(b)For the purposes of this section, the term “military or naval forces of the United States” includes the Army of the United States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the master, officers, and crew of such vessel.”
So Turtler has the right of it: “Make examples of them. Recall them to service. Court martial them. Cashier them. Humiliate them. Do it publicly, do it with due process protection a January 6th Defendant would envy, but do it.”
Consequence must be personal.
I’ve seen this lot labeled as the “Seditious Six” which strikes me as fundamentally inadequate, for it fails to capture their most salient feature, namely, their Smirk.
Therefore, if I may, let them henceforth be the “Smirking Seditious Six“. And may some good come of a proper name, for once.
The bigger problem is that about half the country is just fine with what these people are doing. If a Democrat wins in 2028 there will be all sorts of revenge taken against those who followed what will then be defined as illegal orders.
I wished we lived in a world where a strong majority could see through the dangerous game that is being played here but unfortunately we do not. I don’t see an easy solution to this.
Just read that Salwell is throwing gas on the fire.
This video is part and parcel of the Democrats efforts to drum up massive civil disobedience.
Thoreau wrote about the need from civil disobedience, but he also said that those who practice it must be ready to pay the price because civil disobediences is basically breaking the law. The Dems don’t want to pay for their lawlessness. Defying Trump is, in their opinion, a virtuous duty no matter what.
Geoffery Britain has found the law that was violated by Mark Kelly. Only Kelly is a military retiree on a pension. He’s still subject to the UCMJ. So, he can be recalled to active duty and court martialed for his actions.
The others would have to be charged as civilians who openly attempted to promote insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty. This might not be treason or sedition but could be classified as subversive activity to disrupt the U.S. military.
IMO, these individuals didn’t think their strategy out very well. They thought they could gin up a lot of outrage among civilians and especially their base. They assumed they could imply that Trump was either issuing or going to issue illegal orders without getting any blowback. They were wrong.
Actually, they did break the law.
GB’s citation of 18 U.S. Code § 2387 – Activities affecting armed forces generally raises two questions in my mind.
1) minor – should the language be updated to include the Space Service?
2) suggests to me that there is then a requirement for providing military service members some form of training or education on just what might constitute illegal orders, although 2387 does not use the language of legal vs. illegal orders or directions/ commands.
Clearly what sounds sort of reasonable in a classroom could completely fall apart during actual combat.
During my time in the Army [Vietnam era] I don’t recall ever having had any such training myself. However, we had already heard about My Lai (1968).
“Salwell is throwing gas on the fire”
He’s always been a gasbag.
@ R2L > “suggests to me that there is then a requirement for providing military service members some form of training or education on just what might constitute illegal orders, although 2387 does not use the language of legal vs. illegal orders or directions/ commands.”
Commenters at almost every post I’ve read on this topic have made assertions that Basic Training in all the branches includes a segment on how to identify illegal orders (they have to be blatant and obvious, not turn on fine points of administrative law adjudicated after the fact); the procedures for registering an objection (chain of command, JAG, etc); and cautions about obstructing operations while under fire with doubts.
Note that the emphasis is on legal vs illegal NOT “Does this command satisfy my inner sense of cosmic justice?”
Also, most questions about illegal orders are going to be more mundane than envisioned by Kelly & Co.
Here are a couple of examples, but there are a lot out there.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2025/11/24/dem-senator-might-be-court-martialed-for-spewing-nutty-illegal-orders-nonsense-n2666936
“When I was in the military, one of the first things they taught us in Basic was, we were not obligated to obey an illegal order. For example, an Officer could not legally order me to clock the guy standing next to me — but before you disobey, you’d better be darn sure the order was illegal — I once “declined” to obey an order because an 0-4 ordered me to do something I knew ran explicitly counter to my safety training (concerning handling a bomb), he brought me before the Colonel who chastised the 0-4 and said, “You don’t know anything about his systems” — and that was the end of it. Everyone in the military already knows this by heart. This is ingrained into the troops, there was no need to repeat it except to foment doubt among the uninformed Civilian citizenry”
and a bit further down:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2025/11/24/dem-senator-might-be-court-martialed-for-spewing-nutty-illegal-orders-nonsense-n2666936#comment-6801264048
“I was not a JAG officer, but I attended enough classes on legal vs. Illegal orders and how to approach any order you seriously though might be illegal. In the heat of active combat just assume any order from your direct NCO or officer is legal. That is not the time to stand around arguing.”
I had an Army-vet friend in a similar situation to the first, who was threatened with a court-martial if he didn’t obey an order to fake some safety data regarding some rifles to be used in a live-fire exercise, so he called a CM on himself (I didn’t know you could do that!), and the judge ruled in his favor.
I think a poster at AoS had it right. The potential UCMJ crime is around mutiny; the intent to usurp or override lawful military authority.
It’s salient that they are going after Kelly with a reinstatement and a court martial, which is much more strict than a criminal court and won’t have any federal district judges to throw obstacles in the way.
Dems always pretend to be persecuted whether they are or not, and legacy media always helps them. I don’t think the caterwauling of these six is going to influence much.
I always thought that the fact that the military oath is to the Constitution, rather than to the President or “the people” or whatever – is one of the most important guardrails put in by the Founders that allowed this country to avoid any dictatorial forms of government. Unlike many other countries that had fallen into this pit.
DataRepublican is on the case, digging into the origins of the collusion producing this particular set-piece of political theater or provocation:
See the link for a continuation of the thread, along with a wide variety of documents in facsimile.
https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1993582203151028534
We all understand that these six miscreants are “merely” taking up where the good, decent (if seditious) China-assuring General Milley left off.
Don’t we?
Merely a variation on a (resurrected) theme, which seemed to work pretty well the first time around…
(Viz. that DJT is a crazed fascist tyrant whose goal is global destruction and the weakening of America.)
Hence it’s up to the military—and all loyal, patriots to assuage not only our allies but our enemies that they have nothing to fear from the good ole’ US of A. (Alas, the Dems weren’t able to warn the Iranians this time—the sly and cunning ZIOs fault fer sure; NEXT TIME, though, the Dems’ll be certain to be prepared to pre-empt whatever it is that Trump and his ZIO puppet-masters are planning….)
(Fortunately, we’re also well aware of the slick, if sick, powers of projection that is the classic M.O. of the Democratic Party….)
Related:
“TREASON: Let’s Not Forget About Milley”
https://instapundit.com/758832/
FOAF:
Lighting his flatus.
…they asserted a host of things about Trump and this administration, — Turtler
Yes. The one key element neo did not include in the original post is that not only did the six state the standard doctrine & rules concerning illegal orders, but at least one of the six stated (or strongly implied?) that Trump had already issued illegal orders. Without clarifying that last part, random military members are encouraged to imagine which orders those might be. That’s very toxic psy-ops.
Regarding the six (Miley and the other five)
‘Pour encourager les autres’: Admiral Byng, Voltaire,
Admiral Byng was executed for a lesser offense.
I say that President Trump and the DOJ/DOD should go after these six in any way they can, otherwise–minus any penalty for uttering them–the next such statements–and you can bet that, absent any punishment–there will be more such statements, will only get more inflammatory.
I think the point is to condemn something DJT orders,shrieking “ILLEGAL!!!!”, and hope some gullible chump does something catastrophic.
Richard Aubrey (12:32 pm) said: “I think the point is to condemn something DJT orders, shrieking “ILLEGAL!!!!”, and hope some gullible chump does something catastrophic.”
I personally agree . . .
. . . OR, the point is to serve thinly-veiled notice to Republican/conservative military personnel that they will be mercilessly prosecuted for carrying out any orders from Commander-In-Chief Trump that the left deems worthy of lawfare-style prosecution.
om–Time for President Trump–as Commander in Chief–to reassert Presidential authority and control over our military.
Yeah, Miley would seem to be a prime target, if Trump wanted to go after an officer who tried to ignore the Commander in Chief, reportedly contacted Chinese military authorities, and told them he would warn them if Trump were to decide to do something aggressive towards China, and stir up dissent in the ranks.
And as has been said, ex-military personnel can be recalled, and if they are charged and tried, it will be under the framework of the UCMJ, which is a much harsher, more no-nonsense legal system than our civilian one is.
“Again, just slippery and weaselly and indirect and metaphorical enough to make legal establishment of motive difficult. But we all know that’s what they meant.”
Craig Pirrong’s post (and I think he has it right):
https://streetwiseprofessor.com/sedition-hard-to-prove-conduct-prejudicial-to-good-order-and-discipline-definitely/
It looks like the video was part of a larger, organized attempt to subvert the military. I think that changes things. Free expression is one thing, being part of a group play aimed at the military is something else. I wonder if “The Dirty Half-Dozen” were aware of that? They may have laid down with dogs. Or they may be dogs.
Mh opinion is they hope military personnel start to question anything and decide themselves something isn’t in order so make themselves a model against the administration or War department.
It’s open ended purposely to cover the 6 but hope something pops open to get a charge a event is illegal.
Wasn’t Miley one of those given one of those last minute, auto pen pardons by the staffers in Biden’s White House?
Does that mean that he can’t be prosecuted under the UCMJ?
And speaking of those autopen pardons, this issue seems to have just faded from view.
This situation should be adjudicated, settled, and mechanisms put into place to make sure that such phony, unauthorized pardons can’t be issued in the future and, as well, some of those phony pardons and amnesties need to be voided.
But, good luck getting any useful testimony in court from “the Turnip’,” an increasingly demented Biden.
This attempt to direct the Dem argument towards Trump as an excessively dictatorial CIC seems somewhat flawed simply by virtue that any command he makes will probably be reviewed by smart staffers who can ask a mitigating question, such as “Sir, perhaps you were not aware of the potential consequences of this order ….??”
But as comments above have suggested, illegal orders are more likely to be made by lower levels of command, although arrogance can still distort a seasoned person’s perspective. [Along with illness, arguments with the spouse, etc. .]
@ ColoComment > “Craig Pirrong’s post (and I think he has it right)”
He brings up several things I haven’t seen mentioned elsewhere yet, particularly the irrelevance of Kelly’s appeal to his service record as indicating he can’t possibly be suggesting mutiny — Pirrong gives the example of Benedict Arnold to the contrary.
One of his commenters notes, as covered in Neo’s 11/26 post:
“Prof, the murder of two National Guardsmen gave me an insight. Try this on for size:
The mouthings of the Seditious Six may not simply be boilerplate babytalk born in the communist brainstem: they may be the first stage of a broader plan, the next stage of which is: ‘If you ARE, or CHOOSE to, or CONTINUE TO, follow illegal orders (as defined by us), then you become ‘fair game’, either for lawfare or for Antifa’.”
Thankfully, it was only attempted murder, but still it’s a bad sign.
However, the perp has been identified as an Afghan immigrant (part of Biden’s folly), so maybe it’s just straight-out regular jihadi rampaging. Still, given the way the Left supports the Palestinians and other Muslim terrorists, the list of “fair game hunters” that the commenter gave above could easily be expanded to cover them as well.