SLOTKIN STUMPED! Senator Admits She's 'Not Aware' of Any 'Illegal' Orders From Trump to Military [WATCH]

[Valletta]

The POTUS could have responded, "well, of course. All members carry out my legal orders." Instead, he lashed out....

A favorite of the major media, when Trump responds he "lashes out." If someone mentions in a conversation that military members don't have to obey orders that are illegal, like I have here, there's nothing wrong with that. It's quite another thing to make an announcement against the President of the United States, suggesting that he gives illegal orders and indicating a group of Congressman will have the back of someone who refuses to follow orders. Not surprisingly it was referred to as seditious behavior. I stated that I did not believe any of them would be charged. However, if they persist on this path, openly encouraging members of the military to defy the president, in my opinion they should be charged. This was a poor response by Kelly, to me it makes a court martial more likely than before.

 

[RDKirk]

Millions of people have done their required duty, many of them highly decorated and honorable people who never attacked the chain of A military career does not give them the right to undermine the chain of command of the elected President of the United States. Sedition has serious consequences. If Mr. Kelly persists he will have his day before a court martial.

UCMJ Article 94: Sedition

Definition: Engaging in a revolt, violence, or other disturbance against lawful authority.

A military prosecutor who tried to bring that charge to court-martial would be laughed at.

 

[Valletta]

UCMJ Article 94: Sedition

Definition: Engaging in a revolt, violence, or other disturbance against lawful authority.

A military prosecutor who tried to bring that charge to court-martial would be laughed at.

Seditious behavior is what took place.
AI Overview
Sedition as a political crime

• Definition:
  It refers to actions or expressions intended to incite insurrection against the government, such as speech or writing that promotes public disorder or contempt for government authority.
• Legal implications:
  In many legal systems, sedition is a crime. For example, the U.S. law defines "seditious conspiracy" as an agreement between two or more people to use force to overthrow or destroy the U.S. government or to oppose its authority.
• Historical context:
  Historically, sedition laws have been used to suppress political dissent. The Sedition Act of 1798 in the United States, for example, made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government.
• Distinction from free speech:
  There is a distinction between criticizing government policy (which is protected under free speech) and inciting violence or rebellion against the government (which can be considered sedition).

Realize judges and attorneys often disagree on the law, we will wait and see if he persists and what charges may be brought.

 

[RDKirk]

Seditious behavior is what took place.
AI Overview
Sedition as a political crime

• Definition:
  It refers to actions or expressions intended to incite insurrection against the government, such as speech or writing that promotes public disorder or contempt for government authority.
• Legal implications:
  In many legal systems, sedition is a crime. For example, the U.S. law defines "seditious conspiracy" as an agreement between two or more people to use force to overthrow or destroy the U.S. government or to oppose its authority.
• Historical context:
  Historically, sedition laws have been used to suppress political dissent. The Sedition Act of 1798 in the United States, for example, made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government.
• Distinction from free speech:
  There is a distinction between criticizing government policy (which is protected under free speech) and inciting violence or rebellion against the government (which can be considered sedition).

Realize judges and attorneys often disagree on the law, we will wait and see if he persists and what charges may be brought.

Do you realize I quoted the actual law and you quoted an AI blurb?

 

[NxNW]

Everyone knows you don't have to do anything illegal.

So what's the problem?

Understand that the president is commander in chief, many presidents have conducted military operations. In fact, the U.S. has only declared war only 5 times in U.S. history, the last in World War II. The problem is that this group does not like to see Trump's successes

What successes?

I know the Pentagon has launched an investigation into Mark Kelly's actions,

What actions?

but I don't think they will be charged with sedition in this case. I do think if they try again charges will be brought. If members of Congress want to support the terrorists in these incidents they should bring a lawsuit against Trump.

What terrorists?

 

[NxNW]

Millions of people have done their required duty, many of them highly decorated and honorable people who never attacked the chain of A military career does not give them the right to undermine the chain of command of the elected President of the United States. Sedition has serious consequences. If Mr. Kelly persists he will have his day before a court martial.

He's done nothing to that effect.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you realize I quoted the actual law and you quoted an AI blurb?

Some people think AIs are smarter than the average person. They have it backward.

 

[Valletta]

UCMJ Article 94: Sedition

Definition: Engaging in a revolt, violence, or other disturbance against lawful authority.

A military prosecutor who tried to bring that charge to court-martial would be laughed at.

What is sedition?​

Simply put, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a bipartisan think tank, sedition "is conduct or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the authority of the government."

Is sedition a crime?​

Yes. In the U.S. Code, under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, sedition is characterized as "seditious conspiracy," which is defined as:

"Two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspir(ing) 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."

What is sedition? The laws, penalties and legitimacy of Trump's claims

Here’s a brief look at what sedition is under U.S. law, the penalties, and whether the lawmakers will face charges.

www.wbaltv.com

 

[Valletta]

Do you realize I quoted the actual law and you quoted an AI blurb?

Do you realize I quote an AI overview and you quoted just one law?

 

[RDKirk]

Do you realize I quote an AI overview and you quoted just one law?

Nobody will be charged under the AI overview.

 

[RDKirk]

What is sedition?​

Simply put, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a bipartisan think tank, sedition "is conduct or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the authority of the government."

Is sedition a crime?​

Yes. In the U.S. Code, under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, sedition is characterized as "seditious conspiracy," which is defined as:

"Two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspir(ing) 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."

What is sedition? The laws, penalties and legitimacy of Trump's claims

Here’s a brief look at what sedition is under U.S. law, the penalties, and whether the lawmakers will face charges.

www.wbaltv.com

In both the UCMJ and the US code, it is made perfectly clear that "force" must be involved in sedition. This is the essential factor that keeps the actual sedition laws free from violating the Bill of Rights.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you realize I quote an AI overview and you quoted just one law?

He quoted the particular law Hegseth/Trump are threatening Sen. Kelly under -- the one that applies to the UCMJ. All other definitions are irrelevant.

 

[durangodawood]

Nobody will be charged under the AI overview.

Not yet.....

 

[RDKirk]

Not yet.....

Not legally possible. If anyone is charged for sedition, it will by the written code of the law.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

“To my knowledge, 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,” Slotkin responded.

SLOTKIN STUMPED! Senator Admits She's 'Not Aware' of Any 'Illegal' Orders From Trump to Military [WATCH]

Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin spoke with ABC's This Week host Martha Raddatz over the weekend and was forced to admit that, despite her viral video suggesting the contrary, President Trump has not issued any illegal orders to the military.

hannity.com

Then why make that outrageous video?

Why? As a reminder and a preemptive action. In this case a preemptive action needed to be taken in advance to prevent an anticipated situation or occurrence from happening namely, an illegal and unconstitutional order .

 

[RDKirk]

Why? As a reminder and a preemptive action. In this case a preemptive action needed to be taken in advance to prevent an anticipated situation or occurrence from happening namely, an illegal and unconstitutional order .

We can't expect the military to save us from 20 years of bad voting choices.

Our voting choices place them into a situation of obedience to questionable orders or creating a constitutional crisis, either of which will destroy the military. No element of the Executive Branch can stop Trump without destroying itself. Only the other branches of government have the Constitutional authority to check another.

 

[Fantine]

Inventing "crises" to send the National Guard to cities was determined to be illegal in numerous court decisions.

 

[DaisyDay]

The illegal orders are not necessarily from the president himself as presidents rarely issue direct orders to troops, afaik; but Hegseth or any officer could potentially issue an illegal order - which must be disobeyed.

It is not sedition to tell soldiers that their duty is to the country and constitution, not the president and his minions. Wanting to reactivate Kelly's military status solely so they can court-martial him is egregiously vindictive.

 

[RDKirk]

The illegal orders are not necessarily from the president himself as presidents rarely issue direct orders to troops, afaik; but Hegseth or any officer could potentially issue an illegal order - which must be disobeyed.

But once again, from Corporal Smith's perspective, an illegal order is an order to break a specific law. In his defense at the court-martial, he will have to cite the specific law being broken. And, surprise, surprise, "the Constitution" is a wrong answer for Corporal Smith because only the judiciary can interpret the Constitution, not minor Executive Branch member Corporal Smith.

It is not sedition to tell soldiers that their duty is to the country and constitution, not the president and his minions.

They didn't even say all that. What they said was very carefully crafted...they said precisely, word for word, what each troop's LOAC training already says.

Wanting to reactivate Kelly's military status solely so they can court-martial him is egregiously vindictive.

That's true and ultimately it would fail--not even "ultimately," but immediately--because Kelly's video does not remotely qualify as sedition under the UCMJ or US code.

 

[durangodawood]

Not legally possible. If anyone is charged for sedition, it will by the written code of the law.

Haha yes of course you are right that an AI "overview" is not law.

I was just thinking of a near future sci fi scenario when it will be.