Slotkin ADMITS Dems lied illegal orders, not aware illegal; Crow: very clear unlawful orders

Democratic insubordination video framework fully collapsing. When directly asked whether President Trump has issued any illegal orders, Sen. Elissa Slotkin admitted “To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal.” She pivoted to vague concerns about “legal gymnastics” on Caribbean drug boat strikes and Venezuela — but couldn’t cite any specific illegal order. Slotkin then bizarrely invoked Nuremberg trials and the movie “A Few Good Men” to justify the video. Rep. Jason Crow similarly struggled when pressed — when asked specifically what illegal orders Trump had given, Crow cited Trump’s rhetorical statements about sending troops to polling stations, killing terrorists’ families, and arresting Congress members — but the reporter correctly noted Trump “hasn’t done those things.” Fifteen House Republican veterans (led by retired three-star Marine Corps General Jack Bergman) released a counter-video calling Democrats’ framework “downright dangerous” and “corrosive.” Crow accused these Republican veterans of knowingly lying. Slotkin: “To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal” — when asked if Trump has issued illegal orders. Slotkin on Nuremberg: “If you go back to Nuremberg, right, that, well, they told me to do it. That’s why I murdered people is not an excuse.” Crow: “We were very clear in the video that what we’re talking about is unlawful orders … Send troops into Chicago, send troops into polling stations, kill terrorists’ families, arrest and execute members of Congress."

"Illegal Orders?”

The interviewer directly asked Sen. Elissa Slotkin. “Let’s talk right now. Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?”

Direct question. Has Trump issued illegal orders?

Slotkin’s admission. “To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal.”

The devastating admission. Slotkin’s entire Democratic military video was premised on “illegal orders.” She now admits she’s not aware of any.

“But certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related to Venezuela.”

Slotkin’s pivot: no illegal orders, but “legal gymnastics.” This is wildly different from “illegal.”

“Legal gymnastics” could mean anything:

• Creative legal interpretation
• Novel application of law
• Aggressive legal framework
• Unusual approach to statutes

None of these are “illegal.” Legal lawyers work within the law. Creative legal arguments aren’t illegal orders.

Slotkin’s admission destroys her video’s premise. The video called for military to refuse “illegal orders.” Slotkin confirms no illegal orders exist.

Crow’s Turn

The interviewer then pressed Rep. Jason Crow. “What illegal orders are you urging troops to refuse and what do you hope they take away from your message?”

Crow’s response: “Alex, we love this country. We love our Constitution. It is our job as lawmakers and especially in this moment to be clear morally, to be clear legally and simply and clearly stating what the law says, what the Uniform Code of Military Justice says.”

Crow’s framework: we’re restating what law already says.

“It’s not a crime. It is not treason. It is not sedition. It is our job. And I think it’s really important that we do our jobs in this moment.”

Crow preemptively defending against charges of sedition or treason.

“It does imply that the president is having illegal orders, which you have not seen.”

The interviewer pushed back: the video implies Trump IS giving illegal orders, which you haven’t actually seen.

”Just a Statement”

“I think for us, it was just a statement widely.”

Crow’s deflection: “just a statement widely.”

If the video was “just a statement widely” — just restating existing law — why was it necessary? Law is already in JAG training. Every service member already knows they must refuse patently illegal orders.

The video wasn’t restating law. It was signaling Trump was giving illegal orders.

“We say very quickly and to all the folks who come to us, this is the process. Go to your JAG officer, ask them for explanation, for top cover, for their view on things.”

Crow’s proper procedure (correct framework):

• JAG officer consultation
• Explanation request
• Top cover (legal protection)
• Professional view

But this is NOT what the video told service members. The video directly called for refusal of orders, not proper JAG consultation.

“We do that on a case-by-case basis, but we wanted to speak directly to the volumes of people who had come to us on this.”

Crow’s framework:

• Case-by-case normally
• But “volumes of people” contacted them
• Therefore mass messaging

The “volumes” framework is vague. How many? What specific concerns? Crow doesn’t provide specifics.

”Very Clear No Illegal Order”

“And it is very clear that no one should follow an illegal order.”

True. Universal principle.

“But it’s very murky when you look at what is an illegal order.”

“Very murky” contradicts “very clear.” If the standard is murky, mass messaging for refusal is dangerous.

“And if you go into morally, ethically, that’s a pretty tough thing to look at and say, how do I navigate this?”

Slotkin’s framework now adding moral/ethical considerations beyond legal. This further expands the scope of orders that could be refused.

Nuremberg and Few Good Men

Slotkin then made extraordinary cultural reference. “I don’t, I mean, look, if you go back to Nuremberg, right, that, well, they told me to do it. That’s why I murdered people is not an excuse.”

Slotkin invoked Nuremberg trials. Post-WWII trials of Nazi war criminals. The “following orders” defense was rejected — some orders so manifestly illegal that any moral person would refuse.

“If you look at popular culture, it was like, you watch, you know, a few good men.”

“A Few Good Men” — 1992 film. The “code red” framework where junior Marines were ordered to kill another Marine. Order was illegal. They were prosecuted for following it.

“Like we have plenty of examples since World War II in Vietnam, where people were told to follow illegal orders and they did it and they were prosecuted for it.”

Slotkin citing specific examples:

• Nuremberg (Nazi war crimes)
• My Lai massacre (Vietnam)
• Abu Ghraib (Iraq War)

All involved specific, manifestly illegal orders (genocide, massacre of civilians, torture).

The Crucial Disconnect

Slotkin’s problem: she’s citing historical illegal orders to justify current video about hypothetical illegal orders.

Examples she cites:

• Nazi extermination orders
• Vietnam massacre orders
• Iraq torture orders

These were MANIFESTLY illegal. No lawyer consultation needed. No JAG analysis required. Clearly illegal on face.

Current situation:

• Caribbean drug boat strikes (authorized under IEEPA emergency powers, foreign terrorist organization designation, traditional authorities)
• Venezuela enforcement (similar framework)

These are NOT manifestly illegal. Courts are upholding them. Legal framework exists. Policy disagreement ≠ illegal order.

Slotkin conflates:

• “I disagree with policy” = illegal order ✗
• “Clearly illegal manifestly” = illegal order ✓

The first is policy disagreement. The second is actual refusal obligation.

”Best Thing to Do”

“So the best thing for people to do is go to their JAG officer, their local law enforcement or a legal officer in their unit and ask for some explanation, ask for help. And that’s what we’ve been advising people to do.”

If “best thing” is JAG consultation, why the mass public video? JAG consultation happens privately. Mass messaging to service members is about political theater, not proper procedure.

15 Republican Veterans

The interviewer then noted Republican response. “Let’s get to the content of what you had in that video you released, because there are also 15 House Republicans who are also veterans who released a video, including a retired three-star Marine Corps general, Jack Bergman.”

Rep. Jack Bergman (R-MI) is retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General (three stars). He served in Vietnam. His military credentials exceed Slotkin’s.

“Take a listen to this.”

Bergman’s Response

“Troops, listen up. Any service member who refuses a lawful order is subject to court martial for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

Bergman’s immediate framework: refusing lawful orders is illegal under UCMJ. The Democratic video risks creating cases where service members face court martial for following Democratic advice.

“We study what’s lawful and what’s not lawful and the Democrats stunt insinuating that they’re illegal or unconstitutional orders. It’s downright dangerous.”

Bergman’s framework:

• Military personnel already know lawful vs unlawful
• Democrats’ suggestion orders are illegal is “downright dangerous”
• The video creates false premise for refusal

“It is corrosive. It is meant to weaken our country and weaken the military.”

Bergman’s framing:

• Corrosive effect on military cohesion
• Weakens country
• Weakens military

Crow Responds

The interviewer asked: “How do you respond to these allegations from your colleagues, fellow veterans, that what you have put out there is weakening and corrosive to the military?”

Crow: “Well, these, unfortunately, are some of Trump’s core supporters that are rallying behind the president, and they know better. They know exactly the difference between lawful versus unlawful.”

Crow’s framework: Republican veterans are lying.

“We were very clear in the video that what we’re talking about is unlawful orders.”

“You have the president’s spokesperson going on into a press conference this past week and saying that we called for people to disobey lawful orders. They’re simply lying because the truth is unacceptable to them.”

Crow characterizing Leavitt’s criticism as lying.

“It’s unacceptable. We wanted to start a conversation, and we did, about the dangerous rhetoric this president is using and the threats that he’s made to use our military in an unlawful way."

"Specifically What?”

The interviewer pressed. “Because, specifically what?”

Direct question: what unlawful military use has Trump threatened?

“Well, send troops into Chicago, send troops into polling stations, kill terrorists’ families, arrest and execute members of Congress.”

Crow’s list:

1. Send troops into Chicago (legal under domestic military deployment framework)
2. Send troops into polling stations (Trump never ordered this)
3. Kill terrorists’ families (Trump has NOT ordered this)
4. Arrest and execute members of Congress (never ordered; Trump’s “sedition punishable by death” was legal commentary on existing sedition statutes)

The interviewer noted: “He hasn’t done those things…”

The transcript cuts off there. Crow was caught admitting Trump hadn’t actually done what he was claiming Trump was poised to order.

The Disconnect

Crow’s examples are:

• Legal (Chicago deployment under insurrection/federal enforcement framework)
• Never ordered (polling stations)
• Never ordered (terrorist families)
• Never ordered (executing Congress members)

None represent actual illegal orders. All represent:

• Democratic hypotheticals
• Rhetorical statements Trump made
• Statements interpreted uncharitably
• Political attacks reframed as military concerns

This is exactly what Bergman described as “corrosive” and “dangerous” — weaponizing rhetorical moments to signal military insubordination.

Significance

The complete collapse of the Democratic framework:

1. Slotkin admits: No illegal orders. Video premise false.

2. Crow struggles: Can only cite rhetorical statements, none of which are actual orders.

3. Bergman counterattack: Three-star Marine Corps general directly refuting Democrats.

4. 15 Republican veterans: Military veteran counter-response significant.

5. JAG consultation normalizes: Both sides agree JAG consultation is proper response — which makes the Democratic mass messaging unnecessary.

The constitutional crisis attempt is unraveling. Democrats:

• Created video
• Implied Trump giving illegal orders
• When pressed, admitted no illegal orders
• Pivoted to hypothetical concerns
• Invoked Nuremberg and fictional movies
• Couldn’t cite specific examples

The exposed framework is political theater dressed as constitutional protection. Trump administration can now prosecute sedition charges if DOJ chooses. Legal vulnerability is substantial.

DOJ review is ongoing per Leavitt’s previous briefing. Criminal referrals possible. Even if prosecutions don’t proceed, the political damage to Slotkin, Crow, Kelly, and Goodlander is severe.

Key Takeaways

• Slotkin admits no illegal orders: “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.”
• Slotkin’s Nuremberg invocation: “If you go back to Nuremberg, right, that, well, they told me to do it. That’s why I murdered people is not an excuse … you watch, you know, a few good men.”
• Crow’s specific examples (none actual orders): “Send troops into Chicago, send troops into polling stations, kill terrorists’ families, arrest and execute members of Congress.” Interviewer: “He hasn’t done those things…”
• Bergman counter-video: “Any service member who refuses a lawful order is subject to court martial for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice … the Democrats stunt insinuating that they’re illegal or unconstitutional orders. It’s downright dangerous. It is corrosive. It is meant to weaken our country and weaken the military.”
• Crow attacking Republican veterans: “These, unfortunately, are some of Trump’s core supporters that are rallying behind the president, and they know better” — dismissing 15 veterans including three-star general Bergman.