There was the time in the week preceeding the last presidential election when Donald Trump said to Tucker Carlson of Liz Cheney "She's a radical war hawk. Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let's see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face." No inciting violence against his enemies on that one.
In March, 2024 Donald posted a video on Untruth Social of Trump-themed vehicles. One of the pikcup trucks included a bound and gagged Joe Biden in the back of a pickup truck. No inciting violence, there, either.
When several Democratic members of Congress posted a video recommending members of the military refuse illegal orders, President Trump responded with his own tweet "This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS111 LOCK THEM UP??? " After reflecting upon this he later added "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!""
Then following the murder of actor and producer Rob Reiner and his wife last December, Donald posted on Untruth Social
A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob
Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and
comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due
to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable
affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME,
sometimes referred to as TDS. He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his
raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia
reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and
expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps
like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!
Threatening to shut down political opponents any way he can is not an anomaly for Donald Trump. It is his brand, and if it can be accomplished violently, he's all the happier. Yet, the right-wing whines that Senator Elissa Slotkin is inciting violence against Republicans because she states the obvious, that "Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy." Snowflakes, we have learaned, cry easily.
I'm not sure what this right-wing tweeter believes this snippet of an interview proves. However, she deserves credit for bringing it to the attention of the X audience because it is intriguing. It features an anti-Trump, pro-Iran war comedian questioning a center-left Democratic senator and former C.I.A. analyst.
Bill Maher presses Democrat Senator to explain why John Fetterman is the ONLY Democrat backing President Trump on Iran.
MAHER: “Is this really the case? There’s only one person in the whole party who thinks differently?”
In the video provided, bill Maher is seen tellling Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin
They did say many times, o.k., we found out that they were very close to the bomb I mean, that's what came out in negotiations, that they were bragging that they were, like, weeks away from having enought to make eleven bombs. To me, it's pretty clear.
Well, no, it wasn't because as noted in Scientific American
“There was no evidence that Iran was close to a nuclear
weapon,” says Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation
Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. His comment
echoed those of other experts after the war’s start, as well as statements from
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi at that time and
in 2025 and last year’s “threat assessment” report by U.S. intelligence
agencies.
According to an IAEA estimate, as of June 2025, Iran
possessed 441 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium, where the percentage
refers to the share of the isotope uranium 235 (U 235) found in the material.
That would be enough for 10 nuclear weapons if the material could be enriched
further to full 90 percent weapons-grade concentrations, according to the IAEA.
That further enrichment would take a matter of weeks in a fully functioning
Iranian nuclear complex, perhaps explaining the time line within Trump’s
declaration.
That declaration was that Tehran "would have had a nuclear weapon within two weeks to four weeks and they would have used it" had the USA not struck Iran. Yet
That step alone doesn’t equal a bomb, however. And Iran’s
main enrichment capabilities were “completely and totally obliterated,”
according to Trump himself in June, after the U.S. bombed three underground
Iranian facilities. The administration’s special envoy to the Middle East Steve
Witkoff nonetheless claimed on March 3, after the start of the current war,
that Iran had the capability to make 11 nuclear bombs. Trump administration
officials reportedly failed to include nuclear technical experts in their negotiation
teams with Iran prior to the war, adding to the uncertainty. If Iran really had
rebuilt these facilities, that might have led—over months and not weeks—to the
nation resuming its uranium enrichment, Lewis says. “But this is all ‘if,’
‘maybe’ and ‘later,’” he adds.
As the Michigan senator, a highly successful politician, knows, this would have been too much to explain to a television audience. Nonetheless, she might have said something akin to "that claim about eleven bombs came from Trump's negotiator Steve Witkoff, who is only marginally more credible than the Liar-in-Chief himself and is contradicted by evidence." Instead, she responded
,,,. but until the Strait of Hormuz is open, you literally, you just can't say we won this war when another country has a veto over what ship goes in and out. So I don't think-
No matter what has happened or will happen, you literally can say we won this war, and Donald Trump will say it no matter what- even a nuclear conflagation- ensues. A declaration that "we" won this war cannot be, must not be, the litmus test.
Nor will the USA- and Israel or the West generally- have "won" (whatever that means) this conflict simply if- probably when- the Strait of Hormuz eventually opens. It was open before the USA and Israel launched the assault upon Iran. What followed has been death and destruction on a massive scale. Civilian targets have been hit and in addition to the US 5th Fleet Service Center in Bahrain, a USA base in each of three Mideast countries- Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates- has been struck. These nations believed that hosting an American base would bring them added security, and now will question that judgement. Our credibility has taken a hit.
Additionally, the day after Maher's interview of Slotkin, Iran-backed Houthi rebels entered the war
claiming two missile launches at Israel. About 2,500 U.S. Marines arrived in the region....The Houthis' entry could further hurt blobal shipping if they again target vessels in the Bab el-Mandeb Straif off the Red Sea, through which about 12% of the world's trade typically passes.
This portends the arrival of more widespread terrorism in the MIddle East once this war ends. But, hey, once the Strait of Hormuz is open as it had been previously, the USA can declare "victory." That appears to be the opinion of Senator Slotkin and probably of Bill Maher. More accurately:
:
Mearsheimer: We had assumed we were going to win a quick and decisive victory. Once we ended up in a long war, it's the Iranians who hold most of the cards.
There's nothing Trump can do to escalate that works to our advantage. We're stuck in a war that U.S. can't win. 2X pic.twitter.com/VKCQ8NOcOF
Senator Markwayne Mullin always has been a classy guy, ever-ready to bridge differences.
And now there is this:
Democrats warned of “illegal” orders with zero proof, and insinuated our military would shoot civilians. Days later, two national guardsmen were brutally attacked in Washington, D.C. pic.twitter.com/RxYyDkG64d
In the video posted to this tweet of the Oklahoma Republican, Democratic senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan can be seen commenting
It makes me incredibly nervous that we're about to see people in law enforcement, people in uniform military get nervous, get stressed, shoot at American civilians. It is very, a very stressful situation for these law enforcement and for the communities on the ground, So it was basically a warning to say, like, if you're asked to do something, particularly against American citizens, you have the ability to go to your JAG officer and push back.
Mullin says Slotkin "owes every single person in uniform an apology" and
That's such an insult to nearly every man and woman that has ever served this great nation other from law enforcement or into, or into the military to say that you're gonna get nervous and you're gonna shoot at citizens, U.S. citizens. That is not happening. We know that's not happening. I know that's not happening.
She's saying that they're not trained well? Is she saying that we don't have the best men and women in serving this great nation?
We may have the best men and women in the Armed Forces but, judging from this video, the best are not serving the Democratic Party, and far worse are serving the Republican Party.
Slotkin erred in referring to "people in law enforcement, people in uniform military" because she was speaking exclusively of military personnel. Her point, as would have been obvious to Mullin, was that National Guard soldiers legitimately face a very stressful situation when called to perform law enforcement.
It's understandable that they would As explained in the two-month old video below, "the problem is that soldiers are trained to see people as possible threats while police officers are supposed to protect citizens and soldiers, as they say, are warriors and police officers are guardians." The perspective most soldiers hold, as well as insufficient or inapplicable training, render them unlikely to engage in community policing, however that's understood by officials and police officers in urban environments.
When members of the National Guard were activated for deployment to Chicago, they and Marines were given two weeks of training. They received a brochure produced by the Department of Defense, as well as a slide presentation which (pursuant to the Posse Comitatus Act) forbade them to be involved in security patrols, traffic control, crowed control, or riot control. However, they were told verbally that they could perform those tasks.
Slotkin inadvisedly conflated police officers with military personnel while she obviously was referring strictly to military. This is unfortunate because as Mullin very likely understands, her point was that members of the Armed Forces are not trained in community law enforcement, which is clearly accurate and relevant. The Oklahoman can choose to misunderstand the Michigander, and even to be ignorant about the training the National Guard receives.
But Senator Mullin went beyond that in strongly implying that Democrats were responsible for the shooting in Washington, D.C.- in which one individual has now died- of the two members of the National Guard. If Democrats were willing and able to confront directly that appalling insinuation, they would not only refute that charge. They also would emphasize that Markwayne Mullin has relieved the suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, of responsibility in the shooting.
It's par for the course. Many Republicans believe the greatest threat to the USA is not terrorism, Russia, or China, but the Democratic Party. Democrats should make this clear to the American people, no matter how much their GOP friends and colleagues squeal from being called out. Moreover, the six Democratic members of Congress who patriotically produced the controversial video must recognize that Elissa Slotkin, who obviously has been nervous defending the ad, is not their best spokesperson.
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."
"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
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.
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.
Forget the Republican Party, whose members- aside from Representatives Massie, Mace, and Boebert, and Greene- were set to vote against the release of the Epstein files until the latter resisted pressure from President Trump. This is the real Republican Party:
This is sickening. Democrats started by encouraging attacks on law enforcement. Now they’re urging officers to violate the chain of command and ignore the law—a direct attack on our constitutional republic. pic.twitter.com/X2YCof82BT
"They" must be a chapter name in the GOP playbook. As was the case with many conservatives, such as Senator Mike Lee of Utah, it was "they" who killed Charlie Kirk. Now, Florida's Senator Moody says, in the video below, "They were hinting at it when they were encouraging people to attack our officers in the middle of cities." Seen in the context of the Senator's response to the question, the "they" clearly does not refer to the six Senators. It refers to, well, "them."
Nonetheless, nothing says "Republican" more these days than "lie." Moody claims Democrats are urging officers to "ignore the law."
But the ad speaks only of illegal orders. Senators Slotkin and Kelly assert "you can refuse illegal orders." Representative Crow- legally correctly notes "you must refuse illegal orders."
It's ironic that presidential press secretary Karoline Leavitt would weigh in as she did on the same day as the funeral service for former Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney was (still is) the public official most associated with the unitary executive theory, in which the President commands total and personal control over the entire executive branch.
And so it was that Lying Leavitt, asked about President Trump's threat against the Democratic congress members, would maintain at the news conference on Thursday
Why aren't you talking about what these members of Congress are doing, to encourage and incite violence? They are literally saying to 1.3 million active duty servicemembers to defy the chain of command, not to follow lawful orders.... Every single order that is given to the United States military by this Commander in Chief and through this chain of command, through the Secretary of War, is lawful. And the courts have proven that.
BREAKING: Karoline Leavitt got brutally fact checked in real time, accusing Democrats of telling the military not to follow lawful orders. Reporter: Actually they said illegal orders.
Nevertheless, the lies keep coming because that's the way the President wants it and the assorted enablers and sycophants pay no price. Yet, if Donald Trump is to accomplish his goal of complete despotic control, he'll eventually need the support of the military. That would require officers and enlisted men and women to comply with one or more illegal orders and there are at least six Democratic Senators and Representatives who are sounding the alarm.
