410 Comments
User's avatar
Raleigh Emry's avatar

I too am retired military having served a whole career including 218 combat missions in Vietnam. On the surface, their little trick is letter perfect - obey lawful orders, do not obey unlawful orders. This instruction is part of the fiber of every American fighting man and woman. It's engrained. So why the drama about their video. It's to make the rank and file doubt every order or be paralyzed by a threat that they might be in trouble if they follow even the orders that they believe to be lawful - only to be decided "unlawful" by a cabal of these seditionists if they ever again rise to power. I've never seen anything quite this bizarre but threatening. They must be ridiculed and silenced - if not punished by censure or indictment.

Expand full comment
Epaminondas's avatar

This was so irresponsible that I can't imagine what the Democrats were thinking. The very last thing you want to do is to encourage insubordination or weaken civilian control of the military. Did none of these six Democrats ever study history?

Expand full comment
JD Free's avatar

They were thinking that they carefully worded it to avoid being liable for any kind of legal consequences and otherwise to maximally incite listeners against the administration and provoke Trump to a response they could exploit.

They deserve harsh condemnation for this transparently malicious act.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

It is not carefully worded enough. They violated the statute just by releasing the video: 18 USC Ch: 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES §2387 which I list in its entirety below

Expand full comment
James David's avatar

Well that was a fuckup. They are going after Kelly right now.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

So lawmakers posted a video telling military and intelligence officers to "refuse illegal orders" and Trump & his cult are having a fit of faux outrage in hopes of riling their followers up.

It is funny that a plaque on the wall at west point says, "Our American code of military obedience requires that, should orders and the law ever conflict, our officers must obey the law. "

So he wants to hang people who say exactly what is stated on the wall of a prestigious military academy, and the draft dodger wants to court martial Sen. Mark Kelley who has a extraordinary record of service to the US with 39 combat missions and blasted into space 4 times.

Expand full comment
Mad Dog's avatar

Please, my friend, you must realize the implication behind that video. Even someone who actually must read the instructions on the shampoo bottle before he can wash his hair understands that much.

I agree that Mark Kelly has an enviable service record. That's why I'm perplexed as to the reason he would sell his integrity at such a bargain-basement price. I suppose that's best explained by the (D) after his name.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

Trump is known to be erratic and impulsive, so I think it's a good reminder to soldiers. Also, he is pushing us into a war with Venezuela which has had no input from Congress and he has offered NO evidence that the boats he is blowing up are drug boats. And he is lying when he claims it is fentanyl since Venezuela is known for cocaine and most fentanyl comes overland from Mexico.

The "war" is of questionable legality.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/25/trump-caribbean-boat-strikes-memo

Expand full comment
Cooper Raymond's avatar

Officers must follow the law.

can you imagine what happens when the police in Minneapolis suddenly refuse orders to protect and defend regular citizens from Somali pirates because someone higher in the chain told them to ignore Somali pirates?

Or if a fire fighter refuses orders to put out a fire at a person's house with a MAGA flag flying out front because their Chief said ignore any houses with MAGA flags flying out front?

Or an finance intern in US Senator Kelly's officer refusing a task by Kelly's Chief of Staff to move $ from a donor account into a travel account so the Senator could go to Vegas to visit with a lover?

I"m not saying Kelly has a lover and I"m not saying that Kelly has ordered a financial intern to move funds to a travel account, but we just need to all remind that intern to not do this for Senator Kelly. I

t's very very important for all of us to remind Kelly's staff to not facilitate any irregular movement of money or traveling to have an affair?

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

I don't think the tape has anything to do with the scenarios you mention. Have you looked into Patel's grift involving his girlfriend?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/kash-patel-takes-60m-fbi-221803798.html

Trump is pushing us into a war with Venezuela which has had no input from Congress and he has offered NO evidence that the boats he is blowing up are drug boats. And he is lying when he claims it is fentanyl since Venezuela is known for cocaine and most fentanyl comes overland from Mexico.

The "war" is of questionable legality.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/25/trump-caribbean-boat-strikes-memo

Expand full comment
James David's avatar

They are undermining the Nation's defense structure and attempting to incite insurrection. They should all be locked up or better yet hanged, and cunts like you right alongside them.

You aren't a citizen or an American, subhuman.

Expand full comment
Don Quixote's Reckless Son's avatar

Telling soldiers to uphold their oath and follow the law is inciting insurrection? Really? Are you really that dumb?

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

Fuentes is back! Is that your favorite word

Expand full comment
Kathy Christian's avatar

They deserve to be shot, is what they deserve.

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

I would be happy if the R party could actually show up for an election and vote them out. Just like they didn't in NJ and VA most recently.

Expand full comment
Don Quixote's Reckless Son's avatar

They deserve to be shot for plainly stating the law? Are you really that stoopid?

Expand full comment
Kathy Christian's avatar

They deserve to be shot for fomenting rebellion, which was their intent. There was no other reason for them to make videos telling military people what they already know.

Expand full comment
Don Quixote's Reckless Son's avatar

Fomenting rebellion by telling what they already know? You are an idiot.

Shut up, piggy.

Expand full comment
John Sirko's avatar

Bot alert

Expand full comment
Don Quixote's Reckless Son's avatar

The bot being the person threatening to shoot Senators for stating the UCMJ?

Expand full comment
Cooper Raymond's avatar

You mean shot with a camera with photos of their idiocy published in every newspaper in every city ever day, right Kathy?

Expand full comment
Kathy Christian's avatar

Human justice is always better than divine justice. I would rather face human justice here than hear, "Depart from me, ye accursed; I never knew you." When I was dead.

Expand full comment
James David's avatar

Agreed. And if the government can't or won't, the people can and must.

Expand full comment
Don Quixote's Reckless Son's avatar

So you're threatening the lives of US Senators? Someone here broke the law and it wasn't them.

Expand full comment
James David's avatar

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

When they put on their uniforms... When they became "US Senators," they became the government.

Expand full comment
Kathy Christian's avatar

No, that's what you say I'm doing

Expand full comment
Cooper Raymond's avatar

You are proving Kathy's point.

She isn't saying shoot them. She's saying shoot them with media coverage.

You'd have to be an absolute moron to not understand what Kathy meant by shoot or shot.

These 6 gave it their best shot...and failed...why should we not shoot our best shot right back at them, which is what Kathy did?

She pulled you right into her theory that one can say one thing and someone else will totally 100% take it a different way.

See how that works?

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

That certainly sounds illegal.

Expand full comment
Kathy Christian's avatar

So is fomenting rebellion in the ranks.

Expand full comment
James David's avatar

The people have a right to protect the republic when the government fails. We aren't DC's niggers. They are our niggers. We have a right to alter or abolish the government when necessary.

This country was founded in revolution. It can be renewed that way again.

Expand full comment
Cooper Raymond's avatar

It's called being too clever by half.

Otherwise, being overly confident in their own intelligence or capabilities.

Seriously over confident.

Expand full comment
Old Comers’ Granddaughter's avatar

Well you see, they hate America and they actually want to destroy it.

Expand full comment
Juju's avatar

They do. They want a new constitution that better represents the “modern day”, a.k.a. “their personal form of government totally different than what America is and always has been.” It worked for 250 years because it was written in a way where freedoms were truly protected and nobody could fully undermine it. If you object to anything there are proper, legal ways in the constitution to address it, but they don’t want to do it that way. They want to get rid of it. Following it only strengthens it.

Expand full comment
James David's avatar

Correct. There are certain principles that are off the table. Like the Bill of Rights. This is not a democracy. It is a limited republic.

That is the actual foundation. Limited government told what it can do.

Anyone who tries to violate that steps outside the protections of the compact. The rest of us are empowered to move against them in any way we see fit.

We are not the government's niggers. They are our niggers.

Expand full comment
Cooper Raymond's avatar

IT's helped knowiong that Democrats are opposed to democracy.

How do we know?

1) Roe V Wade being overturned gifted democracy back to where it belonged; legislators who write laws (not 9 unelected judges in robes) Democrats took that gift and stomped on it

2) Bernie in 2016...they used "selectors" instead of "electors" to get Hillary the nomination with rigged super delegates and never apologized other than buying Bernie a nice lake house on Lake Champlain for being such a loveable loser.

3) Bernie in 2020...they selected Biden...got Buttgig and Klobuchar to drop out before SC and kept Warren in...only for Bernie to land on the ground in SC and be accused of all media outlets of being a Russian agent...confirmed by Brennan and the CIA.

4) Harris in 2024...selected..not elected...they hate hate hate democracy.

5) Democrats in the US Senate in 2024...literally telling America that if they were given the majority in the Senate, they would nuke the legislative filibuster, add 2 new states (4 new D Senators), add 6 more progressive DEI hires to the Supreme Court, and nationalize all state and local elections

6) House Democrats continue to refuse to abide by the same term limit rules House REpublicans have had in place for 25+ years...wanting the Maxine Waters, Steny Hoyer 85 year olds to glom onto power resulting a democratic revolution in their own party while the rest of America chomps on popcorn seeing where this goes.

Expand full comment
James David's avatar

"what the Democrats were thinking"

Don't be stupid. This gaggle is incapable of thinking. And they were probably bought. Again... This has CIA all over it.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

So those 6 people can't think for themselves?

Expand full comment
James David's avatar

Not when they do so from behind the cloak of authority. Only citizens otherwise unbound by any special oaths can do that. When they join the organizations they cite in their insurrectionist screed, they voluntarily surrender any right to speak as a free citizen. They are no longer citizens. They are servants.

And bastards like you who support them aren't citizens or anything at all. You are the enemy.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

So they aren't free to repeat what is said on the wall of the presitigious military institution, West Point: "Our American code of military obedience requires that, should orders and the law ever conflict, our officers must obey the law. "

Expand full comment
Trapped in IL's avatar

Yep, this is a CIA op - for sure.

Expand full comment
KEVIN PEARSON's avatar

Democrats don't think.

They follow orders from their Lord and Savior, Darth Pharoah

Expand full comment
Bat Man's avatar

Whaat? Darth Pharoah?

True, You can't be a Christian and believe in abortion, which is what Democrats stand for.

Expand full comment
James David's avatar

Good thing I am not a christian. I support aborting commies up to the 1209th month after conception...

Expand full comment
Brian Wilson's avatar

... I can't imagine what the Democrats were thinking. "

There's the problem. They don't "think"; they feel. And "feelings" have no principles.

Expand full comment
Pam Humphrey's avatar

they scheme

Expand full comment
Don Quixote's Reckless Son's avatar

You're projecting again.

Expand full comment
Brian Wilson's avatar

And you're ASSuming again. ...

Expand full comment
Don Quixote's Reckless Son's avatar

Irresponsible to remind our troops that their obligation is to the Constitution, not Herr Trumpenfuehrer?

Expand full comment
Dena's avatar

They don’t care.

Expand full comment
Ruth H's avatar

I’m going with the need to censure and indict. Enough is enough of the Dem hate pushing narrative.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

Skip censure and go straight to indict. The statute they violated requires them to be removed from office for at least 5 years

Expand full comment
John Duffner's avatar

Someone more insightful than I am noted that their claim to just be innocently reminding people of the law is undermined by them ending the video with a Navy battle cry about possibly fighting to the death.

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

Mark Kelley is aware that every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine gets this training annually.

Expand full comment
Gym+Fritz's avatar

All six of them need to be punished, the only question is how. Maybe start by revoking their security clearances.

Disobey a critical order and maybe you loose a squad . . a platoon . . a company . . a . . . .

Expand full comment
Don Quixote's Reckless Son's avatar

Punished for what? Stating the law? Quoting the USMJ is illegal now?

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

Their intent was clear. All members of the military get training on this annually. They know what their responsibilities are. These politicians were trying to incite doubt into the chain of command. And yet cannot even indicate any illegal orders despite the D party calling everything Trump does illegal. If his orders are illegal (like say towards Venezueala), it should be easy for Kelley to say so.

Expand full comment
Gym+Fritz's avatar

UCMJ.

Expand full comment
Cui Bono's avatar

Military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ and federal law, including 18 U.S.C. § 2387, which prohibits efforts to undermine the loyalty or discipline of the military.

Expand full comment
MAG's avatar

Would not Article 88 of the UCMJ come into play here considering all of them are still collecting their pensions from the military? I knew it was not sedition, they’re all too smart for that. However, it was in very poor form and we all know that. I wish Trump for once would take the high road and respond accordingly.

Expand full comment
Raleigh Emry's avatar

I believe that only Mark Kelly is retired and receiving retirement income and, as I am, subject to the UCMJ. He should know he stepped far over the line. The pentagon is looking into his case.

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

As I recall, any commissioned officer is subject to recall. Unless they actually resigned their commission.

Expand full comment
MAG's avatar

Yes, apparently so. However, I would not want to see another indictment that cannot be won. It’s truly disgraceful what they did but their supporters will not change their minds. In addition, I would also speculate, nor would they have any idea about the UCMJ as well.

Expand full comment
Cranky Frankie's avatar

And assume for a moment that you can call JAG headquarters from the cockpit of an F-35 to get an opinion. The JAG lawyer who offers one probably doesn't enjoy any more qualified immunity than you do. Except by saying "disobey" his/her neck goes into the noose, too. So you'll never get a "disobey" directive from anyone you think more knowledgable.

This whole thing was unhinged, pointless, low motivated grandstanding. Now that Epstein is receding another madness was needed. I guess this is it.

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

The way to punish them is to vote them out of office. We have an opportunity in 1 year to expand the majority in the House and Senate. No time to go wobbly and not show up (like say in NJ and VA most recently)

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

This is the first reasonable thing any right winger on this page has said.

Expand full comment
Don Quixote's Reckless Son's avatar

Or it's because Trump is giving illegal orders.

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

And yet they haven't pointed out a single one.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

Recently, lawmakers posted a video telling military and intelligence officers to "refuse illegal orders" and Trump & his cult are having a fit of faux outrage in hopes of riling their followers up.

It is funny that a plaque on the wall at west point says, "Our American code of military obedience requires that, should orders and the law ever conflict, our officers must obey the law. "

So he wants to hang people who say exactly what is stated on the wall of a prestigious military academy, and wants to court martial Sen. Mark Kelley who has a extraordinary record of service to the US, logging more than 5,000 flight hours in more than 50 different aircraft, 39 combat missions, and having 375 carrier landings. Also he has blasted into space 4 times including a 340 day mission with his twin brother Scott to study the effects of space travel on the human body. Compare that to the draft dodger Trump.

Trump says reckless things all the time. He identifies with those who commit military war crimes and has pardoned two Army officers accused of war crimes in Afghanistan and restored the rank of a Navy SEAL who was acquitted of murder in Iraq.

Rep. Jason Crow ( D-CO), an Army veteran, appeared on Fox news and pointed out some of some statements the erratic Trump has made that would be illegal if ordered:

At the protests at Lafayette Square in the first Trump administration where he said, ‘Can't you just shoot them? Can't you just shoot them in the legs or something?’ to Generals who were with him. Suppose that was an "order."

He's threatened to send the military into Chicago and other cities to, quote, 'go to war with those cities.'

He's mentioned sending troops to polling stations, which is actually a violation of U.S. law. U.S. criminal law prohibits troops from being posted at polling stations.

“We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military, National Guard, but military,” Trump told an audience filled with top generals and admirals in Quantico, Virginia.

He is setting up a US into a conflict with Venezuela and lying about the drug boats he is blowing up claiming they are carrying fentanyl while Venezuela is known for cocaine and most fentanyl comes overland from Mexico. He is killing impoverished fishermen who are the lowest of the low in the drug cartels who take these jobs for a little extra cash. He has had no input from Congress.

Expand full comment
Cooper Raymond's avatar

Threatened? OMG!!!

Mentioned? Let's impeach him.

Sasha is right.

You people aren't crazy.

You're bat shit crazy.

Expand full comment
Heyjude's avatar

Did you study American history? There was a very well-regarded officer who rose to the rank of major general of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War.

His name was Benedict Arnold.

Mark Kelly’s prior service record does not negate what he is doing now.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

The oath taken by soldiers: "will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

The UCMJ addresses the issue of unlawful orders—mainly by stating that a service member is required to obey LAWFUL orders, which implicitly means they must not obey unlawful ones. Some articles deal with lawful orders:

Article 90 — Willfully disobeying a LAWFUL command of a superior commissioned officer

Article 92 — Failure to obey a LAWFUL general order or regulation

An unlawful order is one that

Violates the Constitution

Violates U.S. or international law

Violates the UCMJ itself

Requires a crime (e.g., killing noncombatants, torture)

Has no valid military purpose

U.S. military law recognizes that “just following orders” is not a defense for committing an ILLEGAL act.

Expand full comment
Heyjude's avatar

Yes, yes, we’ve heard this repeated ad nauseum.

You posted that Mark Kelley’s long career should have some weight in determining what to make of his actions now. That is poor reasoning, as the example of Benedict Arnold shows.

But then, your posts are not reasoning, just parroting the party talking points.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

Actually, repeating UMJC points.

Expand full comment
Heyjude's avatar

Yes, yes, no political point at all. Just trying to be helpful, right? Because now you are all experts on the military.

The Democrats have crossed a very serious line here. Dark times.

Expand full comment
KEVIN PEARSON's avatar

Timothy McVeigh also served.

Received medals in Desert Storm.

The minute Kelly became a Democrat, his service was wiped cleaned and nullified

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

That's silly.

Expand full comment
Trapped in IL's avatar

As my father who was a second lieutenant Army in WWII used to say…RIGHT ON!

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

Would he have respected a plaque on the wall of the prestigious west point that says, A "Our American code of military obedience requires that, should orders and the law ever conflict, our officers must obey the law. " exactly what the 6 lawmakers said. ?

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

They implied far more than just that. They made threats and tried to insert uncertaintly. And yet have not pointed to a single illegal order despite being repeatedly asked.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

What "threats" did they make?

Expand full comment
Heyjude's avatar

You know who commanded “prestigious West Point” during the Revolutionary War? Benedict Arnold.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

Yes, I watcehd "revolution" and Mark Kelley is NO "Benedict Arnold."

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

It appears that Slotkin & others had GOOD reason to remind soldiers to NOT obey illegal orders given the report that Karoline Leavitt said Hegseth "authorized Admiral Bradley" to conduct a controversial Sept. 2 strike, killing all aboard a vessel — including two survivors who reportedly survived the initial strike, violating military law. Now Hegseth is trying to throw Bradley under the bus which is a good reason NOT to obey illegal orders.

Expand full comment
Paula Pinnell's avatar

Thank you for saying this. It’s just terrible on so many levels.

Expand full comment
Christopher Kruger's avatar

Sasha, they are not just "Democrats" - they are CIA and MILITARY INTELLIGENCE officers.

After Trump shocked the world by winning in 2016, the DNC ran 150 intelligence agency spooks for Congress.

See here-

https://themillenniumreport.com/2018/03/why-are-so-many-2018-democratic-congressional-candidates-former-military-intelligence-and-security-operatives/

The same people that started the Iraq War,the Neocons, migrated from the Bush-Cheney Republicans to the Democrats in the Obama era. Obama expanded the wars in the Middle East from 2 (Iraq & Afghanistan), to 7.

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

Spooks gotta spook. Never trust a spook.

Expand full comment
Tom Potts's avatar

We do have some good spooks.

John Radcliffe and Ric Grenell come to mind.

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

Spooks and politicians should never be trusted. Just sayin.

Expand full comment
James David's avatar

Trust maybe... After verify.

Expand full comment
KEVIN PEARSON's avatar

The National Guard attacker was a spook

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

Indeed. You have to wonder where his loyalties lie and what his actions will do to his family.

Expand full comment
FLGenX's avatar

This ☝🏼 Most important comment. “they are CIA and MILITARY INTELLIGENCE officers.

After Trump shocked the world by winning in 2016, the DNC ran 150 intelligence agency spooks for Congress.”

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

And CIA know how to lie. In fact, it is a prerequisite to be in the CIA, and probably the FBI, to be very good liars. Their leadership are certainly expert liars.

Expand full comment
Cooper Raymond's avatar

What is stressing the Brennan's, Clappers, Comey's and Slotkin's of the world is columns like this and growth of content like Sasha's who are willing to speak real truth to real power on platforms they are independently building outside the walls of corporate controlled media.

They've lost the narrative and are scared shitless so they start doing dumber and dumber things like this thinking they're being sooooo clever word smithing their statements.

Kind of like hearing Brennan clapping back saying he never said Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation...,he said it had every single sign of being Russian disinformation.

10 years the corporate owned media would have eaten that up as the gospel truth.

That ship has long since sailed and now these cockroaches are having light pointed right at their lies, innuendos and un American tactics.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

I used to subscribe to The Free Press but let it lapse. It grew increasingly Establishment Democrat, especially after CBS acquired it. The corporate influence is hard to shake. Much like the CCP, they can buy anyone off. Bari Weiss made $100M for two years of work.

Expand full comment
KEVIN PEARSON's avatar

The National Guard shooter worked for the CIA in Afghanistan

Expand full comment
James David's avatar

Yes. The heart of it.

Expand full comment
Terry Quist's avatar

This post is grossly inaccurate. Of the six Democrats in the video, only Slotkin (CIA veteran, like Spanberger in Virginia) and Goodlander (veteran of Naval intelligence at a low-ranking level) have intelligence backgrounds.

Houlahan is a Ph.D. in engineering who did space and missile defense projects for the Air Force. Crow was an Army Ranger. Kelly was a Naval aviator (most astronauts are aviators or scientists). Deluzio was a Naval surface warfare officer.

I read the article you referenced out of curiosity and it says regarding the 2018 elections that 57 Democratic candidates were from intelligence, military, and State Department backgrounds. Even those 57 are not all "spooks," which technically by the way refers to clandestine officers and not intelligence officers who advise their commanders on enemy intentions, tactics and equipment. I could find no reference to 157 "intelligence agency spooks."

You should also check your references when you use them. Although the author seems more meticulous than you about facts, she reveals herself toward the end of the article as an avowed Marxist who wants to smash what she regards as American "capitalist imperialism" and recklessly characterizes all U.S. military actions as "war crimes"--because she regards America as evil. She would say the veterans that Sasha quotes are equally "war criminals." Are you aligned with this position?

The prosaic reason the Dems have run so many candidates that are military or intelligence in competitive districts is that they have so many extreme politicians in blue districts that they want to convince moderates that they can be sober and patriotic.

There is no lockstep cabal of intelligence "spooks" aiming to control Congress. Military and intelligence veterans have a wide range of political opinions. The majority tends conservative, especially Army and Marine veterans. On the other hand, the CIA has indeed traditionally recruited from liberal elite academic institutions.

Lastly, the 50 some odd retired intelligence agency heads who signed the embarrassing letter about Hunter Biden's laptop were indeed formally or constructively aligned with the Democratic Party. All agencies at the top are highly political. Each President picks agency and service chiefs aligned with his priorities. Same with Trump--especially this term. That doesn't mean that the rank and file of these agencies and services are bound in a unitary and clandestine conspiracy.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

You play stupid games, you get stupid prizes. All six have flushed whatever they did in their service for political fame

Expand full comment
Terry Quist's avatar

Whatever. I don't approve what they said, either. But the specific question was whether they were all "spooks," which they weren't.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

I would be surprised if Slotkin wasn't behind it. She tapped Kelly, as the most famous of them and then they found four junior Congresspeople who wanted to make a name for themselves. As CIA and someone who analyzed the effectiveness of CIA psyops before joining the Senate, she must have thought she could hurt Trump and undermine the military command structure with her propaganda campaign. It makes one wonder if she is on the CCP payroll

Expand full comment
Christopher Kruger's avatar

Hi Terry, here is an almost identical post from NBC, who I am sure you know you can trust-

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/their-new-mission-foil-trump-ex-intelligence-officials-run-congress-n907291

Expand full comment
James David's avatar

Correct. This has CIA all over it. We have to destroy the spooks, no matter what it takes.

And correct about the neocon migration. Neocons are a core part of the evil rot. They have to be destroyed along with the spooks.

And I don't mean politically destroyed. I mean composted.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

You don't think you might be part of the evil rot (like Fuentes)? You make posts that sound like it.

Expand full comment
Tomas Pajaros's avatar

Sen. Elissa Slotkin: "I Am Not Aware" Of Trump Giving Any Illegal Orders To Military

.

.

"So, the best thing for people to do is go to their JAG officer," she repeated.

.

.

these statements make zero sense until you parse the Democratic strategy: disinformation, gaslighting, misleading, fearmongering, and above all Trump-Smearing.

.

what's sad is how it proves that they have no policies! nothing to sell America, nothing to offer why we should vote for them. All they have is all these weird frightening fantasms of Trump is Hitler Stalin and Darth Vader all rolled together.

.

America rejects their policies completely. Their answer is to openly violate the Constitutional chain of military command and drop a big hint for a military uprising.

.

so sad.

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

Go to the JAG before or after you disobey a direct order?

Expand full comment
Faith's avatar

The Democrats always try to run the country even when they're not in power. They don't respect our Democracy (our constitutional republic) and constantly undermine and disrespect the will of the people who voted Trump into power by both electorial and popular vote majorities. The Media shouldpoint this out. Oh, if only we had an honest, fair media

Expand full comment
Trapped in IL's avatar

Boy is that the truth. I can’t remember the last time the Democrat party as a whole accepted a Republican presidency. They spent 4 years undermining Trump in his first term, and they are hellbent on ruining any chance of making America great again, this time around. Shame on them.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

Oh, Republicans would never do that. Remember how McConnell refused consider a Supreme Court justice nominated by PRESIDENT Obama? He normalized obstruction and shielded Trump from accountability.

Expand full comment
Faith's avatar

Yes I do remember that, and he used the excuse that it was a Presidential election year and that the American People should decide. McConnell would have been more honest to simply explain that he’s not pursuing a Supreme Court confirmation this late in the election cycle because he has the power to do so (because the Republicans controlled the Senate). The difference now is that the Democrats don't control the Presidency, House or Senate, and they're extending no honeymoon period to the election winners, ignoring the peoples vote and trying to rule anyway.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

I don't remember any "honeymoon" in Biden's admin. Trump jumped in with DOGE, imposed huge tariffs and changed his mind numerous times, started rounding up people with no due process for mass deportations, eliminated environmental protections, passed the "big beautiful bill" which benefits billionaires and the bill and related provisions will terminate health coverage for over 15 million people, etc. Certainly no time for a "honeymoon.

Expand full comment
Faith's avatar

You don't like DOGE? Finding and eliminating waste and fraud? Why not? He's also deporting ILLEGAL immigrants, they don't have the same rights as US citizens. It's really something, I just came back from the British Virgin islands, and they needed to see my ticket OUT before they let me in. Ditto with New Zealand, who kepy my son and interrogated him for 4 hours because he didn't have a retrun flight yet booked, while Biden opens the borders, when enforcing the borders and our national sovereignty are major responsibilities of the federal government, and you don't mind? 38T in debt no less. And yes, there was no honeymoon for Biden considering the mass mail-in voting (unsecured drop boxes, etc) and Americans right to criticize that. He also was hand picked by Democrat leadership (Warren and Buttigeg dropped out same time and Clyburn endorsed) eliminating choice for Democrats, which they've done since 2016. We knew he was mediocre in his prime, what he did to Clarence Thomas was disgraceful and he was already slipping mentally and corrupt (Via traceable payments to Hunter in the millions). Re climate change, Democrats haven't proven competent to run cities or schools, and they're going to scontrol the climate? They can't even do what we can measure, the simple things. It's amazing what people will believe. It sounds like you listen to Democrat media exclusively. I recommend branching out. Glad you're here at least. Are you a paid operative? or just interested? Maybe try Megyn Kelly. She's Fair, right leaning, but honest. Happy Thanksgiving!

Expand full comment
Juju's avatar

This!

Expand full comment
Tom Potts's avatar

Why not? He can pre-install their handcuffs and pout them in the pokei.

Expand full comment
Brian DeLeon's avatar

Yes, Slotkin used the old trick, “I have no knowledge that Trump has given illegal orders.”

It’s called plausible deniability.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

Except that Slotkin's fore-knowledge is not necessary (as if she, a CIA agent, had no such knowledge. BS!). The video meets the definition of the law I cited, which is 18 USC Ch: 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES §2387. The participants are all in violation of the very wording of that law. No interpretation is required. They need to be indicted and prosecuted. Hopefully the Grand Jury has been empaneled

Expand full comment
Patrick Chine's avatar

Former US Navy officer. Yes, can't be forced to follow an unconstitutional order. Yes, Trump's reaction is to gut the procedures of federal statutes to "shoot the messengers."

However, where were these people before? Dems acted like Nazis against Jan 6 participants. There is an older woman rotting in Colorado prison in very cold temperatures because she correctly exposed a stolen election.

Yes, Lara Logan revealed that Smartmatic (Dominion and other electronic vote counters) have software from that corrupt Venezuelan company with the purposes of stealing elections and fooling audits.

Barack Obama was elected because of fake voting and rewarded the corruption by removing the sanctions from Cuba. 2020 was stolen, and now Trump has the smoking gun. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe and Hunter Biden, Nancy Pelosi (persecuted those protesting 2020 stolen election), etc., can all be seized by federal law enforcement under reasonable search and seizure. A judge need not be consulted unless seeking probable cause for a warrant. Federal Grand Juries will likely indict the aforementioned and many others.

Where were these people when real Americans protesting an election that was likely stolen were persecuted and punished in excess of anything imagined by the 8th Amendment?

Expand full comment
Jeff Lynn's avatar

Agree that Trump opened mouth before thinking again. His best move would be to gather up veterans on the GOP side of the aisle and make a video asking what order has been unConstitutional or illegal. A clip from Slotkin and Crow stating there has been NONE would fit nicely in between several vets like Eli Crane (Navy Seal), Tulsi Gabbard (current DNI) and even Lindsey Graham (AF JAG) to explain that the democrat video was pure politcal campaign propaganda!

Expand full comment
Matthew J Florio's avatar

Um, no. This is not a case of propaganda and counter-propaganda. This was an act of sedition, and should be treated as such.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

Plaque on the wall at west point says, "Our American code of military obedience requires that, should orders and the law ever conflict, our officers must obey the law. " Is that sedition?

Expand full comment
Matthew J Florio's avatar

Are you just reminding me, or was that comment supposed to mean something?

(See what I did there, scooter?)

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

They said the same thing as the plaque on the wall of a prestigious military institution. How can that be sedition?

Expand full comment
Matthew J Florio's avatar

Unfortunately for these 6, the authors of the law they broke had the wisdom and foresight to anticipate that someone would try to circumvent the law with some kind of indirect, "exact words", semantic bullshit.

The statute is written specifically. Using clever little word games; innuendo, implication, and other forms of carefully stepping around encouraging soldiers to question their orders is just as illegal as directly telling soldiers to question their orders.

Expand full comment
Petey's avatar

Nope to DJT opening his mouth the standard of republican negotiations is to agree to their opponent s point and give them more of what their opponent wants. DJT s negotiation is death or prison both are acceptable in this case. Now the dems gotta start backing up and say let s not be hasty. It DJT had pulled a Bush and let it go the message coming from the dems next would be civil war 2 is just because orange man bad. Repubs gotta start making at least one of them pay the price for attempting to break the chain of command. Looks like Kelly is the weak link call him back to service and court Marshal him

Expand full comment
Erie dearie's avatar

Court martial him also.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

Where is any evidence that Obama was elected by "fake voting"? Don't you have him mixed up with Biden in the 2020 election which Trump claims he "won in a landslide"?

The Jan 6 "participants" were like insurrectionists in invading & trashing the Capitol when incited by Trump.

Remember when Fox News agreed to pay Dominion $787.5 million and acknowledged the court's earlier ruling that Fox had broadcast false statements about Dominion?

Expand full comment
Trapped in IL's avatar

If Lara Logan can be pardoned, it needs to happen.

Expand full comment
smartideas's avatar

Well said! Their video is dangerous and irresponsible.

Expand full comment
Matthew J Florio's avatar

Let's call this what it is.

This is a bald-faced attempt by Democrat cowards to get some poor E-3 with more guts than sense to flush his life down the toilet for their cause. They want some kid fresh out of boot to think he's going to be a big hero by "finally taking down Trump" when he refuses an order. They'll make the kid a celebrity for exactly one news cycle and then leave him to rot in Leavenworth and/or be followed around the rest of his life by a dishonorable discharge.

It's deceitful, shameful, and I don't mind interpreting existing statutes to define it as illegal. These gutless wonders don't even have the minerals to make their case out loud, hoping some hapless soldier does their dirty work for them. Arrest these assholes and let's see if a court agrees that their clear intent was to interfere with military discipline.

Expand full comment
Paul Scofield's avatar

Well put.

Expand full comment
Greg Deibert's avatar

Bingo!!

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

Well done, Sasha!! I was truly disgusted last week when this video was released. It was clearly an effort to create chaos in the military and undermine the authority of the office of President (no matter who is in that office), which is against the best interests of America and, quoting the Constitution, is most certainly giving " them Aid and Comfort" to the enemies of America, which is the definition of Treason and sedition. In fact in the American criminal code, the Seditious Six's activities are specifically called out as crimes against America:

18 USC Ch: 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES §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.

Expand full comment
Susan G's avatar

Saw a similar post on X. Thank you for citing the applicable code. Maybe I'll send this to my congressman (picture 3). Oh, wait, why bother, he doesn't give a damn about people like me (lean Democrat district - last election 52%D 48%R).

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

You are correct....Democrats in Congress are just hoping the GOP never gets its act together and hold their leadership accountable for lying to / misleading the public and in this case, literal Sedition by the letter of the law. This section was literally written for the Slotkin / Kelly video

Expand full comment
Mary Ann Caton's avatar

Please send it anyway! Even if he's not your party, you're still his constituent. With mid-terms coming up, you might catch his interest. Also, maybe a letter to the editor of your local paper or something on Facebook or on his X account?

Expand full comment
Kathleen's avatar

Agreed!

Unfortunately, Trumps overreaction took focus off the heinous video

Video was disgusting and borderline treasonous

Expand full comment
Matthew J Florio's avatar

There was a reaction, not an overreaction. People have become too complacent about Democrats violating the law. Just because we've come to expect it doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable. Just because we've been lax before does not mean we should be lax now.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

Agree with Matthew. Trump was just referencing the Constitution where Sedition is listed as a capital offense potentially resulting in execution. I don't understand why people don't think Trump should defend himself and the Constitution.

Expand full comment
Dena's avatar

I think Trumps reaction brought the necessary attention to the video that msm tries to ignore.

Expand full comment
Juju's avatar

No it didn’t. Why is it OK for them to use a long, elaborate, cryptic, but urgent-verbiage video (“Now. Right now!”,) to remind the troops they shouldn’t follow illegal orders, but it’s not OK for Trump to simply remind them of the punishment to the crime of sedition? His was no where near as appalling as theirs. It didn’t take the focus off their video, it shone a brighter spotlight on it than if he had remained silent.

Expand full comment
Deidre K's avatar

Hell yes! Just a side note- they keep whipping up their followers with fear mongering lies. They rush the streets in their fear and anger and empty mantras. Then their overlords blame Maga for trying to regain law and order as the minions create havoc in the streets scaring law abiding immigrants into thinking they are being disappeared. It is evil.

Expand full comment
KARYN TRUITT's avatar

I read something on FB about how the dems threw the hand grenade and now they are pissing themselves over the chaos that was caused by the reaction to said throw...

It's exactly as you said. They create a 'crisis' then are shocked - SHOCKED, I SAY!!! - when people get angry about their behavior' "What? What did *we* do???"

I understand that the term is 'Stochastic terrorism'

Expand full comment
Dena's avatar

I keep waiting for the chicken little result. How many times will the public fall for the fear the dems are selling?

Expand full comment
NSaustin's avatar

Was Slotkin staging a CIA op? It's a real sickness in the dem party. They seem to forget that we have an all-volunteer military. People sign up to support our country, get an education, and have purpose. ALL service members are briefed on what an illegal order is and it's pretty straight forward--then they make an oath to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over them. Because you politically don't like something isn't included in an illegal order category. I sincerely hope these politicians pay some price for their sky is falling charade.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

The oath: "will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

The UCMJ addresses the issue of unlawful orders—mainly by stating that a service member is required to obey LAWFUL orders, which implicitly means they must not obey unlawful ones. Some articles deal with lawful orders:

Article 90 — Willfully disobeying a LAWFUL command of a superior commissioned officer

Article 92 — Failure to obey a LAWFUL general order or regulatio

An unlawful order is one that:

Violates the Constitution

Violates U.S. or international law

Violates the UCMJ itself

Requires a crime (e.g., killing noncombatants, torture)

Has no valid military purpose

U.S. military law recognizes that “just following orders” is not a defense for committing an ILLEGAL act.

Expand full comment
NSaustin's avatar

You know what to me is an illegal act? Six politicians encouraging service personnel to determine what constitutes unconstitutional orders as it relates to political viewpoints. You are absolutely correct; purposely killing noncombatants or prisoners is an illegal order as is encouraging an illegal act such as robbery, rape, assault etc. Beyond those well designated crimes also applied to ordinary citizens, trying to get military members to decide what is unconstitutional in terms of something that must be decided in our constitutional courts is setting them up for failure and promoting insurrection. None of these politicians could name an illegal order they were speaking of and yet you want Spec4 Smith to make that call?? Use your brain. I don't like the NG in cities for many reasons but that doesn't make it unconstitutional unless our courts make that determination. As far as Venezuela, the jury is out. Funny though, Obama killed many "terrorists" with drones to include approximately 350 civilians and yet, not one democrat called that out. Typical.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

"Drone strikes can only occur legally in designated areas of operation. Under Obama, these included Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Trump expanded these areas to include Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Libya. According to data from the Long War Journal, strikes in Yemen increased threefold to 125 strikes launched once the Trump administration designated it as an area of operations. Strikes in Somalia increased substantially due to the growing threat of al-Shabab at the time. Additionally, since the US designated these areas as active engagement, military commanders were given the Obama-era unilateral authority to conduct drone strikes without Presidential authorization so that a potentially short window to capture an HVT was used effectively."

I guess since Trump is not using drones, he can bomb anywhere and anyone he wants. Is Venezuela an area of active engagement?

Expand full comment
NSaustin's avatar

He has done nothing in Venezuela thus far. It has all been in international waters unlike Obama's drone op in foreign countries with plenty of civilian casualties as a result. But hey, why would we want to pick on Maduro, the evil corrupt dictator and druggie kingpin anyway?

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

Under Barack Obama, the U.S. Intelligence community published a “civilians killed” tally for drone and other strikes outside war-zones: from January 2009–December 2015, they reported 64 to 116 civilian deaths.

In 2019, Trump revoked that requirement for public reporting on civilian casualties in drone (and other) strikes.

It is NOT illegal to tell soldiers to conform to what is in the UMJC.

Carrying out a regime change in another country often results in a prolonged war, say Iraq.

Expand full comment
Tutti's avatar

While it is dishonorable for a member of Congress to publicly exhort our military to disobey an order under the guise of "unlawful" orders from the executive (when, to date, no evidence of this can be found), it is even more shameful for a former military officer to engage in such seditious and , perhaps, treasonous behavior.

Those ex-military members of Congress who signed-on to this farce should be ashamed...but then, in order to feel shame you have to first have an honorable conscience.

Expand full comment
Orwell’s Rabbit's avatar

Mark Kelly looks absolutely DERANGED in the video. He needs help.

Expand full comment
Bat Man's avatar

He doubled down today. I wrote him yesterday and gave him a "what for"! Got a "Thank you"reply today. Idiot. He wouldn't know an illegal anything. He's committing an illegal act and does not know it. Sedation

Expand full comment
R H's avatar

"Crazy Town" is spot on. It is also the capital of "Bizarro World" where everything is the opposite of logic, reason, and common sense.

Sidenote: look at Deluzio's eyes and tell me that's not a demon in a human body.

Expand full comment
Gym+Fritz's avatar

The video by Slotkin & her buddies smacks of low level sedition. I doubt that any of them actually served in command positions. I think they were interlopers in the military, probably held administrative, functionary, positions of privilege. Having a Ranger patch means that you went to Ranger school, not that you served in a Ranger unit. The phrases “useful idiots “, “psy-op” and “jail-house lawyers” come to mind. They all need to be drummed out of leadership positions - they’re no better than the “squad”.

Hope you have a great Thanksgiving, Sasha!

Expand full comment
Dave's avatar

Wonderful article - spot on

Expand full comment
Barbara Bergin's avatar

“We’ll have your backs…” And if you believe that, there’s this land in Florida. Do the people they’re calling to believe these liars will pay their legal fees and fix their resumes when they go AWOL?

Expand full comment
Tom Servo's avatar

Fear mongering is fear porn, the Dem's favorite kind

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

Do you think Democrats have orgasms with their fear porn?

Expand full comment
Tom Servo's avatar

I don't want to know

Expand full comment
Freedom's avatar

So good, Sasha. Articulate. True.

Expand full comment
Mark Marshall's avatar

Thank you, Sasha. The more I think about what the Seditious Six did, the angrier I get.

Expand full comment