November 21, 2025 • 21 mins
In an alarming series of truth social posts, President Trump, angry about a video posted by a group of democratic lawmakers, said “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??” Trump continued with “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” Amy and T.J. discuss how the White House is following up to Trump’s posts, the frightening threats these lawmakers are now facing, and where the law actually stands when it comes to sedition and treason.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey, folks, it is Friday, November twenty first, and we
have several members of Congress who have had to have
their security stepped up. Even their families are being checked on,
all because of a threat that's come their way. The
threat came from President Trump, and with that, Welcome to
this episode of Amy and TJ. Robes. I took some
(00:24):
liberties in the introduction before the most part. What I
said is exactly what people are saying has taking place.
The President of the United States called for the death
of certain members of Congress.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Yes, there's no other way to say it. He suggested
that certain members of Congress be tried and potentially executed.
Even there was a suggestion a retweeting of being hanged
for sedition because of a video that six lawmakers put
(00:56):
out on social media.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Yeah. The President's also he didn't like to He didn't
like so he reacts, which he often does. Want to
say here off the top, I don't want to wait
until we get to the bottom of this of this episode,
but when you're talking about something in this series. This
went on for the most part of the day yesterday.
There's back and forth in DC. The President's spokesperson did
come out later was asked directly, and she said no,
(01:20):
that was the answer. She didn't go farther and explain
when she was asked, does the president want any members
of Congress? Actually killed no, and then she went on
to something else. So what's happened now is that he
amplified this thing with his messages. How many people are
going to pay attention? That wasn't a forceful response, it
was just no.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
There was no explanation, there was no impact. She turned
the tables, as she often does. We're talking about Carolyn Levitt,
the White House Press secretary, back towards the media that
you weren't getting what actually the story is, and it's
about this video. It's not about what the president said.
But what the president said was extraordinary and deeply concerning,
(01:58):
and in this era of the President and Republicans saying
that words matter, that words incite violence, and they point
to Charlie Kirk's asassination as example or exhibit a, what
in the hell is the president doing?
Speaker 1 (02:12):
So we'll tell you exactly what he said. We've said
this before. He was kind of on one last night,
or at least when he was starting to put these together.
If you ever go to his truth Social page. You
can tell kind of what was going on with him
for the day. Some of them are just sometimes it's
so many in a row that it's hard to keep
up with, and it's hard to understand how he has
this much time to post all of these things. But
(02:34):
this was kind of a you tried to piece together,
kind of an unhinged rapid fire messages that, frankly, some
of them wrote, He's used to explaining a lot in
his messages. It seemed like some of these he was
just firing off right quick.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
Yes, and we can start with some of what he
wrote on True Social. The president wrote, it's called seditious
behavior at the highest level.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
That was in all caps.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
Each one of these traders to our country should be
arrested and put on trial. Their words cannot be allowed
to stand. We won't have a country anymore. An example
must be set.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Their words he's talking about there. Their words cannot be
allowed to stand. He didn't like that these members of Congress,
all Democrats. I think all of them had military backgrounds.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
They all had military service, but they came.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Out and put this video together, put out on social media,
essentially bringing attention to something and also, I would say
urging members of the military and the intelligence community, you
have the right, you do not have to follow unlawful orders.
That's the message they were getting out, and that's what
upset the president.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
Correct, And so the President went on to say this
is really bad and dangerous to our country. Their words again,
cannot be allowed to stand. Seditious behavior from traders three
exclamation points, lock them up, question mark, question mark, question
mark got me.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
He seemed like he was fishing for it, like, give
me your response, what do you think?
Speaker 3 (04:03):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Does anyone else agree that this should happen? And then
in a third post, this is among the scariest seditious
behavior punishable by death, and he has death in all
caps with an exclamation point. And then he reposted some
posts that other truth social users were putting out there
(04:24):
after his initial string of posts, including one that said
hang them George Washington, would.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
We keep talking about temperature going up and down? I
don't know how you defend I don't know how you
defend this and say it's not contributing to what is
an awful time of political discourse in this country that
has led to death, that has led to violence. He
didn't just say investigate them. He could have said that
we need to look into this language, or this is
(04:57):
flat out rove. This is terrifying because someone sees this
as marching orders. Someone sees this as well, he's given
me permission. Will someone also see this and go, well,
my guys in the White House I do this for him,
like he said, maybe he'll pardon me, Like what is
the message here? Is clear? Like it's almost it feels
(05:18):
like marching orders. And look they came back and they said, no,
he doesn't actually want them, but man words, you cannot
take this back and these get amplified. Nobody's amplifying her answer, no,
because that's all she said.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
She said, so yes, she's just said Carolyn love it.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
And I actually wanted to read what she went on
to say afterwards, because she did not bring the temperature
down period with her no. And then she went on
to say, many in this room want to talk about
the president's response, but not what brought the president to
responding in this way. You have sitting members of the
United States Congress who conspired together to orchestrate a bit
(06:00):
you a message to members of the United States military,
to active duty service members, to members of national security apparatus,
encouraging them to defy the president's lawful orders. That is
not true. If you read the video, they specifically say
to defy illegal orders.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
Yes, that's all they're talking about, obviously, clearly, plainly, it's
exactly what they're talking about here. And it's difficult to
she justified him calling for the death possibly of members
of Congress. It's justified because what you should be talking
about is that video that caused him to react this way.
(06:40):
If it's really difficult in you, look, we do not
do politics here. We do not go back and forth
with political with issues and take a stance. We don't
do that. But at some point we all have to
look at the same thing and agree that the President
of the United States should not be calling for the
death of members of Congress. If you want to say, well,
he didn't really mean it, you can if you want to, fine,
(07:04):
But you still cannot argue that this is not helpful
and where.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
We are and we are not ad living or inferring
from or assuming what he meant.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
By no, we are reading exactly what he said.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
And I do appreciate, Babe, that you pointed out this
is not about politics. This is not about Republicans and
Democrats and where we stand politically. This is about what's
right and what's wrong, and how can anyone defend that language.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
And I will say this again.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Having Carolyn Levitt put out in that press briefing room
misinformation that these lawmakers were calling for members of the
US military to defy the president's lawful orders is just
a boldfaced lie.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
Their argument, I guess she would say, is that they
believe every order the president has given is lawful. I
think that is what they would say. Now, plenty of
judges at this point courts have said no, that is
not lawful. Deployment of National Guard in this city on
that street up. Yes, he's lost some of these, but
in his mind it's lawful. I'm just saying in a
technical case, she's probably believed everywhere. Came out of her mouth.
(08:10):
That's true.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
I believe she believed what she was saying, she went
on to say. Levitt went on to say that the
video perhaps is punishable by law, so she agreed with
the President on that, and then she added, I'm not
a lawyer. I'll leave that to the Department of Justice
and the Department of War to decide.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Okay, I'm just discouraged. I'm really really well. Just the
temperature this is now.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Now.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
We talked about this, go back to January sixth, even
right well, people were arguing, is was he inciting an
insurrection in that moment in that speech, And people will
tell you yes, it sounds like he was giving marching
orders to go up there and fight like hell and
all these things. So how how can anyone here or
listen a follower, a fringe follower, someone who's not quite right?
(09:02):
This is my god. The president just said their words
can't be allowed to stand. He didn't just say trial,
he didn't say investigation.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Punishable by death. I just reposted someone suggesting that they
should be hanged. That is not That is not something
to be taken lightly. It's not in ingest. It's not funny,
it's not it's not cute, koy. This is serious. And
six democratic lawmakers again who have military service, who served
(09:34):
our country, are now fearing for their life and their
famili's safety.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
There are a lot of times and you know what,
even the piggy thing, even when that happened, he called
a reporter a piggy. It's whatever degree he has a
different standard that we hold him to. And we heard
that even in one day, Yeah Trump and went about
our business. It's rare for him to shock the hell
out of you. This one's I'm this is this is
something else, just given the times we are, and good
(10:01):
Lord Charlie Kirk, after we saw this man gunned down
over words, over politics, over somebody saying his words can't
be allowed to stand. He can't continue to eat you
shut somebody up.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Teachers are fired, people are losing their jobs because they
suggested something or they made light of a death. And
yet the president says what he says, and Carolyn Levitt
tells us that we're focused on the wrong thing.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
Well, aren't there people out there, including maybe many of
his supporters, who will see or who will take this
and go yeah, I agree, who are following his direction
and following his policies. They're following his mindset, They're following
the way he sees things. I'm trying, I'm really really
trying to be on that side, to look at it
from that angle and go, wow, these members of Congress
(10:51):
did something so egregious that they should be looked into
as treasonous as seditious. It does it right. I'm trying
to see the other side and to where you would
use this type of language, to where you would make
this type of suggestion over what they said. I just
can't get there.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
I would like to read what they said because I
have it here. So, folks who are listening, if you
haven't watched the video, certainly you should. It's on Senator
Alissa Slotkin's social media pages that the whole video is
up there, and certainly it's been running on all the
news shows today. But this is what the lawmaker said.
We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.
(11:31):
Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk.
The administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community
professionals against American citizens like us. You all swore an
oath to protect and defend this constitution. Right now, the
threats to our constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but
from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You
(11:53):
can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No
one has to carry out orders that violate the law
of our constitution. Now, these lawmakers did not call for
any opposition to a specific policy or to a specific order,
but They're just saying, you actually have a duty as
(12:13):
a member of the US military to uphold the constitution
and to reject any illegal order.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
They say they made this.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Video because they've been hearing from rank and file members,
from their contacts that people are concerned about being forced
to do something that they believe is illegal.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
They stated facts, and they stated law, and they stated
do they not as this is understood, all of us
have some kind of knowledge of that tangentially or whatever
that that exists, that you're not permitted and you're okay
to refuse somebody just tells you, hey, go in there
and attack that Walmart. For me, you're not going to
follow that order because it's illegal, right, It's very simple stuff.
(12:54):
How does that rise to the level of you, all
the traders who need to die?
Speaker 3 (12:58):
You got me?
Speaker 1 (13:00):
I'm trying, I'm trying to find I'm always trying to
look at both sides and not just go after and criticize.
But this is just dangerous stuff. How many of these
episodes have we done talking about violence, talking about Charlie Kirk,
talking about everything that came after that rose. Oh we
could what the lawmakers were killed up in? Was it Michigan. Yes,
this year Pennsylvania governor house set on fire.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
Yes, this is Nancy Pelosi's husband attacked. I mean, you
can keep going on and on.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
It's been happening in greater numbers over the years, and
this is the exact opposite of what we need in
this country of bringing.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
The temperature down with folks. We don't just take our
word for it. We certainly got us thinking. A lot
of people are talking about treason versus sedition, versus insurrection.
Those have been thrown around. We'll get some clarity on that.
We do have the law here in front of us.
Also some famous cases. Maybe you know about the cases
of treason, but maybe not the ones having to do
(13:57):
with seditions. Stay with us here, we're right back, all right.
We continue now on this episode of Amy and TJ
talking about sedition. The president's tweets in which he said
that certain members of Congress who did something he didn't
(14:17):
like should possibly be charged with sedition, which is punishable
by death. One of my you know, one of my
favorite favorite favorite movies, Michael Douglas, American President. You remember
that movie. Yes, there's a great scene with a net
Benning when he first meets her in the White House.
She was showing off talking about him in some meeting.
He sneaks in, They turn around, they see him there,
(14:38):
and he, with a great smile, says, let's take him
out back and shoot him. And he gets this laugh
out of it because it was just this cool moment
and it scared everybody in the room. The President's here,
we're talking about him, and and he made this joke.
And I always love that scene in that line because
it was delivered perfectly, and it gave you an idea
(14:59):
of I guess the energy in the room and why
something like that sounds so ridiculous. That obviously is.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Jogi right coming from the President of the United States.
Clearly he would never call for the death of someone.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
Take him out back and shoot is what he said
in front of them. And here we are. That was funny,
and it's so ridiculous that it you'd have to laugh.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
You knew it was a joke. Yes, immediately today not
so much.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
We have to take everything he says. Seriously.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
Wow, it's frightening. So we went and looked up what
sedition actually is, and so the US Code defines sedition
as this a crime involving two or more people in
the United States for any of the following purposes. To
conspire to overthrow or destroy by force, the government of
the United States, or to wage war against it, To
(15:48):
oppose by force the authority of the United States Government,
to prevent, hinder, or delay by force, the execution of
any law of the United States. Or to take, sees
or possessed by force any property of the United States.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
This is the way it has to This involves conspiracy, right.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
At least two people, two or more people in the
United States.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
Okay, this is why it jumped out to me when
you were talking about this early. I'm looking back at
Carolyn Levitt's she used some language that seemed to try
to set up there. It is you have sitting members
of the United States Congress who conspired together to orchestrate
like it was specific language.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
But this is the caveat here that really got me
to get a conviction for seditious conspiracy. The government has
to prove that the defendants conspired to use force. Simply
advocating for the use of force is not the same thing.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
By that definition. This is a non sense.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
It's a moot point, yes.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
But has impact who knows what kind. Yes, they're not
going to trial, They're not going to get hauled into
court over this.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
No. Yes. And the interesting thing is, if you are
just a US citizen and you're convicted of sedition, you
can face up to twenty years in prison. But if
you are a member of the military, if you are
a military or you can face the death penalty under
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And these members of
Congress were members of the military, So by that connection
(17:18):
you would say it's possible that they could get a
death sentence if they were to be convicted of sedition.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
And we tried to find there are not a lot
of cases historically having to do with sedition. We thought
that might be a bunch of famous cases. It's actually
really not, not names you would know, but there was
what was the best two years, I guess this was
pretty high profile members of the Oath keeper Low. Yes.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Yes, yes, those who were charged January sixth, Yes, there
were some sedition charges in a few of those cases.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
But this is really really rare.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
I went and looked the AP says that in the
history of the United States, only twelve people have been
convicted either through treeson or s edition, and we're talking
Aaron Burr, we're talking Tokyo Rose, We're talking very different cases.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
Completely, it was Benedict Arnold. We go back to that.
He wasn't. Actually we consider him a traitor, but he
was never formally.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
He's not on this list.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
The point is you have to go back a ways.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
Correct.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
This isn't used a lot.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
Correct, and so this is just I mean, I would
say the only good thing that has come out of
the story is that maybe we as Americans are learning
more about our laws more.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
I'm serious.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
I looked up and learned things I did not know
that I wouldn't have looked out or looked at either way.
Speaker 3 (18:38):
And also looking at the Uniformed Code of Military.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Justice, which is basically what the military is allowed to
do when it comes to lawful orders. And I actually
looked at all of this too, and it was really interesting.
So basically, any person subject to this chapter who willing
willfully disobeys a lawful command shall be punished, Okay, so
(19:00):
that could be punished by death. So if you disobey
a lawful command, that could be punished by death, just
by the way, and.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
Then if the offense is committed.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
You end up outside of a war time, you can
be court martialed and again serious significant punishments.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
But I thought this was interesting.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
An order is considered lawful, and this is where I
think the question is between what the lawmakers are saying
and what the president is saying. A military order is
lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws
of the United States, or lawful superior orders, or for
some other reason beyond the authority of the official issuing.
(19:42):
So it is a little confusing.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
Well, who gets to say whether or not this order
is lawful or not? Especially a lot of this stuff
is tied up in a court, correct, So is it
an illegal order to tell me to go patrol this
street because a judge just said this is an illegal deployment.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
It is a gray area and very confusing, especially in
these times when President Trump is ordering, yes, members of
the military to go in to cities and then you
have judges saying you're not allowed to go into said cities.
So where whose orders are the lawful ones? It is confusing.
(20:20):
It's an interesting conversation. It just doesn't need to be
fueled with all this horrific rhetoric.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
That's a good point, we could still be having the
same debate without this part being in it. But folk,
we just if you listen to us a little bit
at all and our pat you know, we always are
on trying to just bring the rhetoric down and words
matter and careful of what you say. So we encourage
you all to being careful in what you're saying today
(20:47):
and just remember always that words matter. And please be
a part of bringing the temperature down in this country
if you can. If that's even with a conversation on
the subway, at the grocery store, just please, we gotta
be better.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
Or around the Thanksgiving Thanksgiving dinner this coming week.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
There's a lot to talk about here. Thank you for listening, everybody.
We always appreciate you. I may be Robock alongside TJ. Holmes.
We will talk to you soon.
Hey, folks, it is Friday, November twenty first, and we
have several members of Congress who have had to have
their security stepped up. Even their families are being checked on,
all because of a threat that's come their way. The
threat came from President Trump, and with that, Welcome to
this episode of Amy and TJ. Robes. I took some
(00:24):
liberties in the introduction before the most part. What I
said is exactly what people are saying has taking place.
The President of the United States called for the death
of certain members of Congress.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Yes, there's no other way to say it. He suggested
that certain members of Congress be tried and potentially executed.
Even there was a suggestion a retweeting of being hanged
for sedition because of a video that six lawmakers put
(00:56):
out on social media.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Yeah. The President's also he didn't like to He didn't
like so he reacts, which he often does. Want to
say here off the top, I don't want to wait
until we get to the bottom of this of this episode,
but when you're talking about something in this series. This
went on for the most part of the day yesterday.
There's back and forth in DC. The President's spokesperson did
come out later was asked directly, and she said no,
(01:20):
that was the answer. She didn't go farther and explain
when she was asked, does the president want any members
of Congress? Actually killed no, and then she went on
to something else. So what's happened now is that he
amplified this thing with his messages. How many people are
going to pay attention? That wasn't a forceful response, it
was just no.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
There was no explanation, there was no impact. She turned
the tables, as she often does. We're talking about Carolyn Levitt,
the White House Press secretary, back towards the media that
you weren't getting what actually the story is, and it's
about this video. It's not about what the president said.
But what the president said was extraordinary and deeply concerning,
(01:58):
and in this era of the President and Republicans saying
that words matter, that words incite violence, and they point
to Charlie Kirk's asassination as example or exhibit a, what
in the hell is the president doing?
Speaker 1 (02:12):
So we'll tell you exactly what he said. We've said
this before. He was kind of on one last night,
or at least when he was starting to put these together.
If you ever go to his truth Social page. You
can tell kind of what was going on with him
for the day. Some of them are just sometimes it's
so many in a row that it's hard to keep
up with, and it's hard to understand how he has
this much time to post all of these things. But
(02:34):
this was kind of a you tried to piece together,
kind of an unhinged rapid fire messages that, frankly, some
of them wrote, He's used to explaining a lot in
his messages. It seemed like some of these he was
just firing off right quick.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
Yes, and we can start with some of what he
wrote on True Social. The president wrote, it's called seditious
behavior at the highest level.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
That was in all caps.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
Each one of these traders to our country should be
arrested and put on trial. Their words cannot be allowed
to stand. We won't have a country anymore. An example
must be set.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Their words he's talking about there. Their words cannot be
allowed to stand. He didn't like that these members of Congress,
all Democrats. I think all of them had military backgrounds.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
They all had military service, but they came.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Out and put this video together, put out on social media,
essentially bringing attention to something and also, I would say
urging members of the military and the intelligence community, you
have the right, you do not have to follow unlawful orders.
That's the message they were getting out, and that's what
upset the president.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
Correct, And so the President went on to say this
is really bad and dangerous to our country. Their words again,
cannot be allowed to stand. Seditious behavior from traders three
exclamation points, lock them up, question mark, question mark, question
mark got me.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
He seemed like he was fishing for it, like, give
me your response, what do you think?
Speaker 3 (04:03):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Does anyone else agree that this should happen? And then
in a third post, this is among the scariest seditious
behavior punishable by death, and he has death in all
caps with an exclamation point. And then he reposted some
posts that other truth social users were putting out there
(04:24):
after his initial string of posts, including one that said
hang them George Washington, would.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
We keep talking about temperature going up and down? I
don't know how you defend I don't know how you
defend this and say it's not contributing to what is
an awful time of political discourse in this country that
has led to death, that has led to violence. He
didn't just say investigate them. He could have said that
we need to look into this language, or this is
(04:57):
flat out rove. This is terrifying because someone sees this
as marching orders. Someone sees this as well, he's given
me permission. Will someone also see this and go, well,
my guys in the White House I do this for him,
like he said, maybe he'll pardon me, Like what is
the message here? Is clear? Like it's almost it feels
(05:18):
like marching orders. And look they came back and they said, no,
he doesn't actually want them, but man words, you cannot
take this back and these get amplified. Nobody's amplifying her answer, no,
because that's all she said.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
She said, so yes, she's just said Carolyn love it.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
And I actually wanted to read what she went on
to say afterwards, because she did not bring the temperature
down period with her no. And then she went on
to say, many in this room want to talk about
the president's response, but not what brought the president to
responding in this way. You have sitting members of the
United States Congress who conspired together to orchestrate a bit
(06:00):
you a message to members of the United States military,
to active duty service members, to members of national security apparatus,
encouraging them to defy the president's lawful orders. That is
not true. If you read the video, they specifically say
to defy illegal orders.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
Yes, that's all they're talking about, obviously, clearly, plainly, it's
exactly what they're talking about here. And it's difficult to
she justified him calling for the death possibly of members
of Congress. It's justified because what you should be talking
about is that video that caused him to react this way.
(06:40):
If it's really difficult in you, look, we do not
do politics here. We do not go back and forth
with political with issues and take a stance. We don't
do that. But at some point we all have to
look at the same thing and agree that the President
of the United States should not be calling for the
death of members of Congress. If you want to say, well,
he didn't really mean it, you can if you want to, fine,
(07:04):
But you still cannot argue that this is not helpful
and where.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
We are and we are not ad living or inferring
from or assuming what he meant.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
By no, we are reading exactly what he said.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
And I do appreciate, Babe, that you pointed out this
is not about politics. This is not about Republicans and
Democrats and where we stand politically. This is about what's
right and what's wrong, and how can anyone defend that language.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
And I will say this again.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Having Carolyn Levitt put out in that press briefing room
misinformation that these lawmakers were calling for members of the
US military to defy the president's lawful orders is just
a boldfaced lie.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
Their argument, I guess she would say, is that they
believe every order the president has given is lawful. I
think that is what they would say. Now, plenty of
judges at this point courts have said no, that is
not lawful. Deployment of National Guard in this city on
that street up. Yes, he's lost some of these, but
in his mind it's lawful. I'm just saying in a
technical case, she's probably believed everywhere. Came out of her mouth.
(08:10):
That's true.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
I believe she believed what she was saying, she went
on to say. Levitt went on to say that the
video perhaps is punishable by law, so she agreed with
the President on that, and then she added, I'm not
a lawyer. I'll leave that to the Department of Justice
and the Department of War to decide.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Okay, I'm just discouraged. I'm really really well. Just the
temperature this is now.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Now.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
We talked about this, go back to January sixth, even
right well, people were arguing, is was he inciting an
insurrection in that moment in that speech, And people will
tell you yes, it sounds like he was giving marching
orders to go up there and fight like hell and
all these things. So how how can anyone here or
listen a follower, a fringe follower, someone who's not quite right?
(09:02):
This is my god. The president just said their words
can't be allowed to stand. He didn't just say trial,
he didn't say investigation.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Punishable by death. I just reposted someone suggesting that they
should be hanged. That is not That is not something
to be taken lightly. It's not in ingest. It's not funny,
it's not it's not cute, koy. This is serious. And
six democratic lawmakers again who have military service, who served
(09:34):
our country, are now fearing for their life and their
famili's safety.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
There are a lot of times and you know what,
even the piggy thing, even when that happened, he called
a reporter a piggy. It's whatever degree he has a
different standard that we hold him to. And we heard
that even in one day, Yeah Trump and went about
our business. It's rare for him to shock the hell
out of you. This one's I'm this is this is
something else, just given the times we are, and good
(10:01):
Lord Charlie Kirk, after we saw this man gunned down
over words, over politics, over somebody saying his words can't
be allowed to stand. He can't continue to eat you
shut somebody up.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Teachers are fired, people are losing their jobs because they
suggested something or they made light of a death. And
yet the president says what he says, and Carolyn Levitt
tells us that we're focused on the wrong thing.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
Well, aren't there people out there, including maybe many of
his supporters, who will see or who will take this
and go yeah, I agree, who are following his direction
and following his policies. They're following his mindset, They're following
the way he sees things. I'm trying, I'm really really
trying to be on that side, to look at it
from that angle and go, wow, these members of Congress
(10:51):
did something so egregious that they should be looked into
as treasonous as seditious. It does it right. I'm trying
to see the other side and to where you would
use this type of language, to where you would make
this type of suggestion over what they said. I just
can't get there.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
I would like to read what they said because I
have it here. So, folks who are listening, if you
haven't watched the video, certainly you should. It's on Senator
Alissa Slotkin's social media pages that the whole video is
up there, and certainly it's been running on all the
news shows today. But this is what the lawmaker said.
We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.
(11:31):
Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk.
The administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community
professionals against American citizens like us. You all swore an
oath to protect and defend this constitution. Right now, the
threats to our constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but
from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You
(11:53):
can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No
one has to carry out orders that violate the law
of our constitution. Now, these lawmakers did not call for
any opposition to a specific policy or to a specific order,
but They're just saying, you actually have a duty as
(12:13):
a member of the US military to uphold the constitution
and to reject any illegal order.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
They say they made this.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Video because they've been hearing from rank and file members,
from their contacts that people are concerned about being forced
to do something that they believe is illegal.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
They stated facts, and they stated law, and they stated
do they not as this is understood, all of us
have some kind of knowledge of that tangentially or whatever
that that exists, that you're not permitted and you're okay
to refuse somebody just tells you, hey, go in there
and attack that Walmart. For me, you're not going to
follow that order because it's illegal, right, It's very simple stuff.
(12:54):
How does that rise to the level of you, all
the traders who need to die?
Speaker 3 (12:58):
You got me?
Speaker 1 (13:00):
I'm trying, I'm trying to find I'm always trying to
look at both sides and not just go after and criticize.
But this is just dangerous stuff. How many of these
episodes have we done talking about violence, talking about Charlie Kirk,
talking about everything that came after that rose. Oh we
could what the lawmakers were killed up in? Was it Michigan. Yes,
this year Pennsylvania governor house set on fire.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
Yes, this is Nancy Pelosi's husband attacked. I mean, you
can keep going on and on.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
It's been happening in greater numbers over the years, and
this is the exact opposite of what we need in
this country of bringing.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
The temperature down with folks. We don't just take our
word for it. We certainly got us thinking. A lot
of people are talking about treason versus sedition, versus insurrection.
Those have been thrown around. We'll get some clarity on that.
We do have the law here in front of us.
Also some famous cases. Maybe you know about the cases
of treason, but maybe not the ones having to do
(13:57):
with seditions. Stay with us here, we're right back, all right.
We continue now on this episode of Amy and TJ
talking about sedition. The president's tweets in which he said
that certain members of Congress who did something he didn't
(14:17):
like should possibly be charged with sedition, which is punishable
by death. One of my you know, one of my
favorite favorite favorite movies, Michael Douglas, American President. You remember
that movie. Yes, there's a great scene with a net
Benning when he first meets her in the White House.
She was showing off talking about him in some meeting.
He sneaks in, They turn around, they see him there,
(14:38):
and he, with a great smile, says, let's take him
out back and shoot him. And he gets this laugh
out of it because it was just this cool moment
and it scared everybody in the room. The President's here,
we're talking about him, and and he made this joke.
And I always love that scene in that line because
it was delivered perfectly, and it gave you an idea
(14:59):
of I guess the energy in the room and why
something like that sounds so ridiculous. That obviously is.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Jogi right coming from the President of the United States.
Clearly he would never call for the death of someone.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
Take him out back and shoot is what he said
in front of them. And here we are. That was funny,
and it's so ridiculous that it you'd have to laugh.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
You knew it was a joke. Yes, immediately today not
so much.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
We have to take everything he says. Seriously.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
Wow, it's frightening. So we went and looked up what
sedition actually is, and so the US Code defines sedition
as this a crime involving two or more people in
the United States for any of the following purposes. To
conspire to overthrow or destroy by force, the government of
the United States, or to wage war against it, To
(15:48):
oppose by force the authority of the United States Government,
to prevent, hinder, or delay by force, the execution of
any law of the United States. Or to take, sees
or possessed by force any property of the United States.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
This is the way it has to This involves conspiracy, right.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
At least two people, two or more people in the
United States.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
Okay, this is why it jumped out to me when
you were talking about this early. I'm looking back at
Carolyn Levitt's she used some language that seemed to try
to set up there. It is you have sitting members
of the United States Congress who conspired together to orchestrate
like it was specific language.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
But this is the caveat here that really got me
to get a conviction for seditious conspiracy. The government has
to prove that the defendants conspired to use force. Simply
advocating for the use of force is not the same thing.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
By that definition. This is a non sense.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
It's a moot point, yes.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
But has impact who knows what kind. Yes, they're not
going to trial, They're not going to get hauled into
court over this.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
No. Yes. And the interesting thing is, if you are
just a US citizen and you're convicted of sedition, you
can face up to twenty years in prison. But if
you are a member of the military, if you are
a military or you can face the death penalty under
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And these members of
Congress were members of the military, So by that connection
(17:18):
you would say it's possible that they could get a
death sentence if they were to be convicted of sedition.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
And we tried to find there are not a lot
of cases historically having to do with sedition. We thought
that might be a bunch of famous cases. It's actually
really not, not names you would know, but there was
what was the best two years, I guess this was
pretty high profile members of the Oath keeper Low. Yes.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Yes, yes, those who were charged January sixth, Yes, there
were some sedition charges in a few of those cases.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
But this is really really rare.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
I went and looked the AP says that in the
history of the United States, only twelve people have been
convicted either through treeson or s edition, and we're talking
Aaron Burr, we're talking Tokyo Rose, We're talking very different cases.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
Completely, it was Benedict Arnold. We go back to that.
He wasn't. Actually we consider him a traitor, but he
was never formally.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
He's not on this list.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
The point is you have to go back a ways.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
Correct.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
This isn't used a lot.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
Correct, and so this is just I mean, I would
say the only good thing that has come out of
the story is that maybe we as Americans are learning
more about our laws more.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
I'm serious.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
I looked up and learned things I did not know
that I wouldn't have looked out or looked at either way.
Speaker 3 (18:38):
And also looking at the Uniformed Code of Military.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Justice, which is basically what the military is allowed to
do when it comes to lawful orders. And I actually
looked at all of this too, and it was really interesting.
So basically, any person subject to this chapter who willing
willfully disobeys a lawful command shall be punished, Okay, so
(19:00):
that could be punished by death. So if you disobey
a lawful command, that could be punished by death, just
by the way, and.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
Then if the offense is committed.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
You end up outside of a war time, you can
be court martialed and again serious significant punishments.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
But I thought this was interesting.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
An order is considered lawful, and this is where I
think the question is between what the lawmakers are saying
and what the president is saying. A military order is
lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws
of the United States, or lawful superior orders, or for
some other reason beyond the authority of the official issuing.
(19:42):
So it is a little confusing.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
Well, who gets to say whether or not this order
is lawful or not? Especially a lot of this stuff
is tied up in a court, correct, So is it
an illegal order to tell me to go patrol this
street because a judge just said this is an illegal deployment.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
It is a gray area and very confusing, especially in
these times when President Trump is ordering, yes, members of
the military to go in to cities and then you
have judges saying you're not allowed to go into said cities.
So where whose orders are the lawful ones? It is confusing.
(20:20):
It's an interesting conversation. It just doesn't need to be
fueled with all this horrific rhetoric.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
That's a good point, we could still be having the
same debate without this part being in it. But folk,
we just if you listen to us a little bit
at all and our pat you know, we always are
on trying to just bring the rhetoric down and words
matter and careful of what you say. So we encourage
you all to being careful in what you're saying today
(20:47):
and just remember always that words matter. And please be
a part of bringing the temperature down in this country
if you can. If that's even with a conversation on
the subway, at the grocery store, just please, we gotta
be better.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
Or around the Thanksgiving Thanksgiving dinner this coming week.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
There's a lot to talk about here. Thank you for listening, everybody.
We always appreciate you. I may be Robock alongside TJ. Holmes.
We will talk to you soon.
Hosts And Creators
Lauren Zima
Chris Harrison
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.