Illegal Orders No Obstacle

On ABC's This Week without George Stephanopoulos, Senator Elissa Slotkin told Martha Raddatz

This president in the last administration, his last administration, asked his secretary of defense and his chairman of the Joint Chiefs to, quote, "shoot at their legs” at unarmed protesters in front of the White House that he wanted moved.

Raddatz responded "Actually, I know- I know you're talking about Mark Esper's book," to which Slotkin replied "yeah" and Raddatz commented "He didn't exactly say that. he said the president suggested that, but they were never ordered to do that."

Well, Martha, you got us there because in Esper's book 

"The president was enraged," Esper recalled. "He thought that the protests made the country look weak, made us look weak and 'us' meant him. And he wanted to do something about it.

"We reached that point in the conversation where he looked frankly at [Joint Chiefs of Staff] Gen. [Mark] Milley and said, 'Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?' ... It was a suggestion and a formal question. And we were just all taken aback at that moment as this issue just hung very heavily in the air."

It was not an order, but a mere "suggestion." Raddatz also asked "Do you- so- so, let's talk right now. Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?" Slotkin responded

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. And I think that's why --

A few questions later, Raddatz maintained

And with these service members calling you, couldn't you have done a video saying just what you just said? If you are asked to do something, if -- if you are worried about whether it is legal or not, you can do this. It does imply that the president is having illegal orders, which you have not seen.

The Michigan senator noted that when a member of the armed services with a concern approaches her, he or she is told "go to your JAG officer, ask them for explanation, for top cover, for their view on things."

That's fine but inadequate, thus giving rise to this objection from Utah's senior US Senator:

Why would one encourage troops to ignore orders from the commander in chief—based on an apparent presumption the he issues illegal orders—in the absence of illegal orders?
pic.twitter.com/A3YZ0RqPs2

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) November 24, 2025

It's hard to blame Lee for being opportunistic by jumping on a mistake by omission by a Democratic colleague, who might have mentioned that three days earlier

that President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in Washington D.C. was likely unlawful and inflicted serious harm on the District’s right to govern itself.

 U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb, appointed by former President Joe Biden, found that the Trump administration overstepped the law when it deployed more than 2,000 Guard members into D.C. streets for routine patrols.

This wasn't the last word because

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb put her order on hold for 21 days to allow the Trump administration time to either remove the troops or appeal the decision. The ruling marks another flashpoint in the months-long legal battle between local leaders and the president over longstanding norms about whether troops can support law enforcement activities on American streets.

Nonetheless, the moral of the story remains that President Trump issued an order which probably is illegal and at least could raise in the minds of Armed Services personnel a question about its legality. Yet, Senator Lee claims there has been "an absence of illegal orders." 

This wasn't an isolated order given that ten days before Judge Cobb determined that the Administration had violated the law with deployment of Guard members to the District of Columbia, free speech organizations had filed a friend-of-the-court brief 

in the Supreme Court in Trump v. Illinois, the state’s lawsuit challenging President Trump’s attempt to federalize National Guard troops and deploy them into Chicago and surrounding counties. Both the federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit have so far blocked this deployment. The case is at the Supreme Court on the Trump administration’s emergency application seeking to stay or temporarily lift the lower courts’ orders blocking the deployment.

Most recently are the strikes against people on boats in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean. Call the victims "narco-terrorists-  as does Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth- they still are very likely extrajudicial killings. 

Never issued an an illegal order, my foot.  If no illegal order is contemplated, someone inform the President, who asked in a post on his ironically named Truth Social (emphasis his)"LOCK THEM UP???" and reposted someone else's "HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD!" He neglected to say "I haven't issued any illegal orders and wouldn't."  Credit him with uncharacteristically not lying.

On November 24, Hegseth labeled the video "despicable, reckless, and false." It is unclear what was "false." Was it "you can refuse illegal orders" or "it's a difficult time to be in public service" or "Americans trust their military?" Hegseth doesn't say, yet now has initiated against Senator Mark Kelly, retired U.S. Navy captain, a "thorough review" to "determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures." Still no claim that the President has issued no illegal order nor that he will not in the future..

In March, US District Judge James Boasberg ordered aircraft taking accused gang members to Venezuela to return to the USA. Instead, they landed in Venezuela and the detainees were held in what is considered a "notorious prison." Boasberg found probable cause to hold the Administration in criminal contempt of court and a hearing is scheduled for December 1. One expected witness is "a former U.S. Justice Department attorney who filed a whistleblower complaint that claims a top official in the department suggested the Trump administration might have to ignore court orders as it prepared to deport Venezuelan migrants it accused of being gang members."

Not only have illegal orders been issued by this regime, the President's reaction on November 23 to the video by the Patriotic 6 contains a glaring omission. He contended

The traitors that told the military to disobey my orders should be in jail right now, not roaming the fake news networks trying to explain that what they said was OK. It wasn't, and never will be. It was sedition at the highest level, and sedition is a major crime. There can be no other interpretation of what they said.

Funny it is that Senator Lee and other Trump sycophants are claiming on behalf of the President what the latter won't claim himself- that no illegal order has been issued.

Terrorism is the go-to term today to rationalize any illegal action. Our future may include "gambling terrorists" or "shoplifting terrorists" or even "Democratic terrorists." (Trump himself already has gone there.).  The possibilities are endless. When the Administration more brazenly ignores court orders, we probably will hear of "judicial terrorists," especially if we don't oppose illegal actions as boldly as have those six members of the House Democratic caucus.

   

Share |