Demtards call for a military coup!!!

Got anything about the sedition that Bam struck out on? Originally Posted by HDGristle

Thanks, but I don't take requests.

name one ILLEGAL order the Lord Emperor Donald Commander In Chief has issued?

we'll wait Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

They can't answer that, any more than the 6 Democrat video participants could answer it when they appeared on the Sunday talk shows 11 days ago. All they can do is dissemble and obfuscate.


The ‘Illegal Orders’ Controversy

Democrats initiate a dangerous debate.

By James Freeman
Nov. 24, 2025 3:25 pm ET

One doesn’t have to approve of the way President Donald Trump responded to several congressional Democrats to deplore their reckless suggestion that U.S. troops should disobey the president’s orders. A video published by the Democrats deserved widespread condemnation, not death threats.

Today the Defense Department posted on X about a Democratic senator from Arizona who appeared in the video urging resistance to illegal orders—without claiming that any particular Trump order is illegal. According to the Pentagon:

"The Department of War has received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.). In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures. This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official comments will be limited, to preserve the integrity of the proceedings.

The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces. Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels.

All service members are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful. A service member’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order."


This message was rather tame compared with Mr. Trump’s online posts last week when he responded to news of the video that Sen. Kelly and his party colleagues had posted. Mr. Trump wrote:

"It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand – We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET.
Mr. Trump later posted:

SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!"

The next day, Mr. Trump told Brian Kilmeade of Fox News that he wasn’t threatening the lawmakers with death but that they were in “serious trouble.” So even Mr. Trump is acknowledging that he overreacted wildly, and the overreaction hasn’t necessarily ended. Better than court-martial proceedings would be a bipartisan censure of the video participants in the Congress, but Democratic leaders are rarely willing to cross party progressives.

A series of recent media appearances suggests that the video participants who started this poisonous controversy were acting out of partisanship, not patriotism. Members of the video gang keep showing up for TV interviews and refusing to name any illegal Trump order while pretending they were simply offering standard affirmations of the rules soldiers must follow. This is false, as the Democrats’ video clearly presented this moment as a crisis of lawbreaking that soldiers must resist.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D., Mich.) posted the video to X, adding:

"We want to speak directly to members of the Military and the Intelligence Community.

The American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution.

Don’t give up the ship."

Speaking directly to members of the military and the intelligence community, Sen. Slotkin says in the video: “We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.” But why, if there is no law-breaking?

In the video the Democratic lawmakers go on to claim that Americans’ trust in their military is “at risk” and state: “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.”

The Democrats’ unsubtle message in the video continues: “Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders.”

“We know this is hard,” says Rep. Jason Crow (D., Colo.) in the video, but ask him precisely why this would be a hard time for soldiers to act lawfully and he starts doing a rhetorical tap-dance.

Last week on Fox News, Mr. Crow couldn’t give Martha MacCallum an example of an illegal Trump order and under her questioning he suggested that he was simply conducting military training, which would seem to be a violation of the separation of powers. Managing U.S. troops is the job of the executive branch, not the legislative. This column will go out on a limb and guess that the executive branch didn’t request congressional help in the form of partisan videos on social media implying that the executive branch is violating the law.

Mr. Crow repeated his line with Margaret Brennan on CBS on Sunday. According to the CBS transcript he noted Mr. Trump’s history of harsh rhetoric and said that “if we wait until the moment that he gives a manifestly unlawful order to a young soldier, then we have failed them. We have to start that conversation now and get people thinking about the distinction, which is exactly what we did.”

So there’s still no specific allegation of illegal orders and Mr. Crow is still pretending that it’s the job of Congress to train soldiers and that the video was just standard rule-of-law stuff. He added on CBS that “it’s very telling that simply restating their obligation to the Constitution and the law, which we do constantly with our service members, gets this type of response from the president.”

Mr. Kelly followed him on the CBS program and was willing to call Trump targeting of alleged drug boats “questionable, at best” but suggested he needed to receive more briefings on the subject. He then made his case for the video based in part on disturbing comments Mr. Trump had made as a candidate prior to the 2016 election!

Sen. Slotkin appeared with ABC’s Martha Raddatz on Sunday and similarly avoided making any specific claim of an illegal order. Here’s an excerpt from the ABC transcript:

RADDATZ: ... Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?

SLOTKIN: To my knowledge, I — I am not aware of things that are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related to Venezuela.

But when pressed by the ABC host for specifics, the senator then moved on to sharing concerns about U.S. troops in U.S. cities, but again with no specific allegation of an illegal order. There are certainly arguments to be made against the use of federal troops in various situations from offshore drug interdiction to urban violence. But the Democratic video crew seems to lack either the competence or the confidence to make them.

This suggests their media stunt was about finding ways to win over progressives with anti-Trump ferocity instead of having to endorse the left’s latest politically toxic demands on issues like gender and climate.

The American people must always be on guard against presidents abusing their authority and also against members of Congress abusing their authority. This essential vigilance isn’t strengthened, but is significantly weakened, when people in positions of power launch partisan accusations of such abuses without specific claims.

James Freeman is the co-author of “The Cost: Trump, China and American Revival” and also the co-author of “Borrowed Time: Two Centuries of Booms, Busts and Bailouts at Citi.”

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-ille...versy-03740a7e

Thanks, but I don't take requests. Originally Posted by lustylad

Or maybe you just know it's complete bullshit

Or maybe you just know it's complete bullshit Originally Posted by HDGristle

It may not rise to the level of sedition, but it's very serious. Otherwise the Dept. of War would not have announced an investigation into allegations of misconduct by Mark Kelly and felt compelled to issue this reminder (reprinted from my last post, which you were too lazy to read):

"The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces. Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels.

All service members are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful. A service member’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order."

Hilarious

Hilarious Originally Posted by HDGristle

^^^ Typical "reply" when you're cornered and can't figure out how to answer with substance or facts or rational argument.

I would say try harder, but I realize you're too insecure and you're not a serious player here.

Thanks, but I don't take requests. Originally Posted by lustylad

OOOF!!!!!!!

Mr Gristle has run out of spin moves. Kinda reminds me of this song

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=arpidG...eSByb2WgBwE%3D

Like a whirlpool it never ends!!!!


Kelly and Slotkin are Deep State operatives. They’re going down.

“The Seditious Six” Face New Legal Challenges — Massive MONEY LAUNDERING Allegations Emerge

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...massive-money/

^^^ Typical "reply" when you're cornered and can't figure out how to answer with substance or facts or rational argument.

I would say try harder, but I realize you're too insecure and you're not a serious player here. Originally Posted by lustylad

Or... when I recognize a poorly-designed flame bait and laugh it off. There's no win here for you and there's no sedition, either.

I can refuse to engage with irrelevant crap the same way soldiers can refuse illegal orders.

It most definitely does not "rise to the level of sedition". As much as MAGA wants to convince themselves otherwise, words still mean things.

Or... when I recognize a poorly-designed flame bait and laugh it off. There's no win here for you and there's no sedition, either.

I can refuse to engage with irrelevant crap the same way soldiers can refuse illegal orders. Originally Posted by HDGristle

What makes you think I'm looking for a "win" here (or any other time I post)? What's a "win" anyway? Do we have umpires or referees to declare "winners" and "losers"? No wonder you're so insecure. I like to post contrary opinions, so readers will know there are at least two sides to every argument. I constantly question my own views and welcome anyone who is able to challenge them with facts and logic.

Very sad that you can't do that. Your last 3 comments in this thread have dismissed my posts (or something, it's not even clear what you're railing against) as "complete bullshit", "hilarious" and "irrelevant crap". If that's all you got, it doesn't persuade anyone of anything - other than the fact that you're extremely rattled about... something.

James Freeman of the WSJ has laid out a thorough & well-reasoned analysis of why the Dem video is a detestable political stunt. That's why I copy-pasted his column in post #167. Too bad nobody here can explain in their own words exactly where and why they think James Freeman's analysis is wrong.

Not intended to persuade you on this matter. I recognise a brick wall as a brick wall.

There was no sedition. They effectively restated what is commonly known and also called out in the UCMJ. You're looking for a specific order when they don't point to one because you want it to be more than it is. It's a generic reminder and not meant for civilians. There's no specific legal advice being given, no specific order identified, and no one is advocating for soldiers to do anything they're not already obligated to do.


As for your penchant for trying to make this about me or focus on me personally, it's not worth a comprehensive response from me.

It may not rise to the level of sedition, but it's very serious. Otherwise the Dept. of War would not have announced an investigation into allegations of misconduct by Mark Kelly and felt compelled to issue this reminder (reprinted from my last post, which you were too lazy to read):

"The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces. Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels.

All service members are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful. A service member’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order." Originally Posted by lustylad

Assumed lawful orders by the most unlawful administration ever in history. The UCMJ didn't become a question mark till this administration started violating Citizens rights, and even for the due process rights guaranteed by the constitution.


BTW- The EO of DJT to change the DOD, to the Dept of War is NOT / has NOT been approved by congress. The merger from National Security Act of 1947 combining the Army and Navy etc. was done to change to DOD. So for now. It's a bi-line, a acting as, a temporary name change till approved. AND IT only is gonna cost 2 billion dollars to change:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...ion-rcna242438

President Donald Trump’s directive to change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War could cost as much as $2 billion, according to six people with knowledge of the potential cost.

The name change, which must be approved by Congress, would require replacing thousands of signs, placards, letterheads and badges, as well as any other items at U.S. military sites around the world that feature the Department of Defense name, according to two senior Republican congressional staffers, two senior Democratic congressional staffers and two other people briefed on the potential cost.

The UCMJ tells that assumed legal orders- ( assuming you have a person who follows laws and isn't thinking he is above any /all of them would ever tell someone to do anything illegal), but yet because he's the most lawless commmander in chief- there is the moment of pause that all ppl he dictates orders to- should be careful to consider that those certainly MAYBE worth reviewing. Sad but it's true. 38 felonies and sexual assaults prove that he's a fucking lying machine.

BTW- I wonder if MAGA knows how stupid it is to just toss money out the window in order to feel more butch about a namesake, vs. what the military actually does. Changing a name costs 2 billion to just add the word WAR ---- I guess having small testicles and needing to adorn yourself with "we the people" tattoos and christian templar symbols wasn't enough for the DUI hire Kegseth. He needs to kick women out, and man-up those flimsy warriors (in his opinion) and damn it all to anyone who would question either his authority, machoism, and his intellect on these matter. After all- a Major in the Minn National guard knows everything you need to know- especially when it comes to Fox n Friends, and how the military is run. What a fucking disaster.

He'd rather see citizens arrested, and denied/ deprived thier rights and to see people in international waters blown to bits, when they were already blown to bits. I guess DJT is wearing off on him- a dead epstein can tell no lies or tales, and neither can dead Venezuelans' who were in those boats that were blown to bits- vs. considering if those are illegal orders to execute those who are defenseless. Must have been the fog of war that got to him....... but we'll never know.

Not intended to persuade you on this matter. I recognise a brick wall as a brick wall.

Nonsense. I can give examples where I've agreed with you. You can't do the same. If your purpose isn't to persuade, what is it? To troll?


There was no sedition.

Straw man. I never called it sedition. Even trump walked back his initial (over-) reaction. The video outrage came first, followed by Trump's (over-) reaction. Just like JV in another thread, you're trying to deflect away from the former by complaining about the latter.


They effectively restated what is commonly known and also called out in the UCMJ. You're looking for a specific order when they don't point to one because you want it to be more than it is.

Oh, sure. Let's minimize the whole thing. They were just innocently telling the troops what they already know. No need to explain why it's necessary. Kinda like my telling your girlfriend she can walk away if you cheat on her, without my giving her any evidence that you've been unfaithful to her. That would be highly inappropriate to say the least, and legitimate grounds for you to kick my ass if you had an ounce of self-respect.


It's a generic reminder and not meant for civilians.

Of course it's meant for (far-left progressive) civilians! Stop being disingenuous. Go back and read James Freeman's column. He cited the actual statements of the 6 video participants to show they "were acting out of partisanship, not patriotism." The fact that these so-called Democrat "leaders" would imply illegality when none occurred is beyond outrageous.


There's no specific legal advice being given, no specific order identified, and no one is advocating for soldiers to do anything they're not already obligated to do.

Soldiers aren't lawyers. They're supposed to follow orders, which are presumed lawful 99% of the time. Military retirees are also subject to the UCMJ, which proscribes actions that "interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces". If Mark Kelly expects to dodge a court-martial proceeding or other disciplinary rebuke by the Pentagon, he'll need to come up with a much better answer to the question of what fucking "illegal" order(s) did he have in mind.


As for your penchant for trying to make this about me or focus on me personally, it's not worth a comprehensive response from me. Originally Posted by HDGristle

Lol. Don't flatter yourself. It's not personal. It's certainly not about you. I'm careful to treat all condescending, evasive know-it-alls the same. Maybe you could be less condescending and evasive when someone pushes back against your feckless arguments. Try harder.

As I said, it wasn't intended to persuade you nor do I care to.

Soldiers don't have to be lawyers, but they can consult them and have been increasingly the past few months. Neither you nor Bam nor Heggy nor Trumpybear can show sedition.

Do you want a vid of Heggy saying the soldiers can refuse illegal orders? It's readily available and no one called him seditious, calling for a military coup, tried to recall him for it or tried to court-martial him. But, hey... you do you and let me know when he court martials himself



As for the rest... you flatter me constantly. Thanks.