8 hours ago, seajae said:

really have to wonder how many commenting on this actually served, I know when I served(in the 70's) not following/obeying an order was a chargeable offence, I was even caught in one action when I was ordered to do somethiong I did not agree with but still did it to avoid being charged for disobeying the order. I was later cleared after pointing out I was following a lawful order, what these six have done is to tell service members to disobey an order they disagree with which in itself is an offence as it relies on members to use their own opinion of what is illegal and what isnt, will be interesting to see where this goes.

Let me clarify something. The video did not tell military personnel to disobey legal orders or orders they personally disagreed with. It did remind service people that they did not have to follow, should not follow, an illegal order. Trump immediately ordered his DOJ, all of whom are totally subservient to him, to begin the legal harassment he's famous for.  The purpose of the video was intended to clarify a service person's responsibility when carrying out an order and admittedly to "poke the bear." Trump's response was completely in character for an authoritarian: If anybody in Congress dares to go against him in any perceivable way, they can expect to be harried, sued, or possibly even attacked physically, as a result. In this instance he actually accused them of sedition and indicated that they should be killed for the crime of merely stating appropriate parts of the UCMJ. It's almost unbelievable to me that Republicans have bent the knee to this tyrant for so many years.

I can only hope that what we're seeing now is the beginning of the collapse of the MAGA movement.

15 hours ago, novacova said:

Your statement is a good example of the left’s perpetual blinding Trump tirade is all, really nothing more to it than that.

Nonsense we all heard the find me the votes recordings we all saw and heard the results of the speach on the ellipse on J6 ….we all saw the obstruction on the docs case so shove it were the sun doesn’t shine.we aren’t stupid….those of us that can look past the partisanship and the fake news fox and their ilk get it.

18 U.S. Code § 2387 - Activities affecting armed forces generally

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next

(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.

46 minutes ago, seajae said:

18 U.S. Code § 2387 - Activities affecting armed forces generally

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next

(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.

Where is it written that the army must follow illegal orders? 

53 minutes ago, seajae said:

Whoever, with intent

These were 6 members of congress responding in their official capacity to inquiries received by their active military constituents as to how they might respond to any questionable  order or regulation.