11-29-25 The Weekend Hour 1: End of Hurricane Season and Despite Dire Predictions, Where Were They?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
To night.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director of
talk show host Michael Brown.

Speaker 1 (00:04):
Brownie, no, Brownie, You're doing a heck of a job.
The Weekend with Michael Brown broadcasting from Denver, Colorado. Hey,
it's the Weekend with Michael Brown. Really glad to have
you joined in the program today. So let's get started.
You know, we've got rules of engagement if you want
engage in the program. The easiest rule to remember is
if you want to send me a text message, the
number is three three one zero three three three one

(00:25):
zero three, use the keyword Mike or Michael e the
one tell me anything or ask me anything, three three
one zero three, and don't forget Be sure and follow
me on X at Michael Brown USA, at Michael Brown USA.
You remember this video of these congress critters. You had
Senator Mark Kelly from Arizona, you had Jason Crowe, the

(00:47):
congressman from Colorado, and the others who appear on video.
And to me, it appears that they're undermining, or at
least trying to undermine the military chain of command. I
just find it wrong. If you don't remember the video
here ideos.

Speaker 2 (01:04):
Or Mark Kelly Representative christ Luzios, Maggie Goodland, your Representative
Chrissy Hulahn, Congressman Jason Crowe. I was a captain in
the United States Navy, former CIA officer, former Davy, former
paratrooper and Army ranger, former intelligence officer, former Air Force.
We want to speak directly to members of the military
and the intelligence community to take risks each day keep

(01:25):
Americans safe. We know you are under enormous stress and
pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust
is at risk. This administration is hitting our uniform military
and intelligence community professionals against American citizens like us. You
all swore an oath to defend this constitution. Right now,
the threats to our constitution aren't just coming from a

(01:46):
broad but from right here at home. Our raws are clear.
You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders.
You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry
out orders that violate the law or our constitution. We
know this is hard and that it's a difficult time
to be a public servant. But whether you're serving in
the CIA, the Army, or Navy the Air Force, your

(02:08):
vigilance is critical. I know that we have your back
because now more than ever, the American people need you.
We need you to stand up for our laws, constitution,
and who we are as Americans. Don't give up, don't
give up, don't give up, don't give up the ship.

Speaker 1 (02:28):
And there you have it. Now you may recall and
if you didn't hear I talked about it, and quite frankly,
I don't remember whether I did it on the weekend
program or the weekday program. But if you go to
the podcast, if you go to Michael Says go here
dot com, or if you already download the podcast, you
can find where I talked about the Uniform Code of
Military Justice. And while they talk about you know, hey,

(02:50):
it's pretty clear that you can disobey an illegal order. Nonetheless,
I pointed out that the process for doing that is
actually quite convoluted, and you need just you know, you
start with your immediate you know, your immediate supervisor if
you will for the private sector, but you're your your
immediate commander, and you work your way up to chain,

(03:11):
and of course the order has to be obviously illegal,
and there's a process. And of course if you if
you just blatantly decide that you think that the order
is illegal, then you're actually violating the Code of Military Justice,
and you're going to be the one that's going to
get in trouble for that. Well, since that video was
released some time ago, the administration has indicated the likelihood

(03:36):
that they are going to maybe open an investigation of
all those caveats there. Likely maybe well, I don't know
whether by the time, you know, we get after past Thanksgiving,
we get passed, you know, into the holidays. I don't
know whether they would really do it or not. But
the more I read and studied the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, the more I talked about and thought about

(04:00):
Title eighteen US Code, Section twenty three eighty seven, I
got to thinking that perhaps what these people are doing
is more than just trying to get attention. Because my
initial thought, my initial reaction to the video was here
are a bunch of Yahoo's, a bunch of Congress critters
who don't like Donald Trump. They don't like perhaps his

(04:23):
attack on the drug vessels coming out of Venezuela. They
don't like what he did with the Uranians, you know,
blowing up the Uranian nuclear sites. They don't like almost
any probably everything that Trump does they don't like. And
that's fine, But if you don't like what he does,
then there's obviously a mechanism to voice your opinion, either

(04:43):
on the Senate or the House floor, that you don't
like what he's doing. You can introduce legislation to stop
him from doing what he's doing. But to just go
on to a video and then make this claim that hey,
you can just disobey the illegal order really does undermine

(05:03):
the military chain of command. Now, since they'd released the video,
there have been numerous instances where they have these all
these Yahoo's Mark Kelly and Jason Crow and the rest
of them have appeared on television in which they've been
asked for example, can you can you tell us an example?
What is it that caused you to do this? What

(05:25):
are some examples? And they suddenly get very quiet, and
they get a little discombobulated, they get a little evasive.
One they can't give any singular example, let alone numerous
examples of anything that Donald Trump has said or ordered,
or for that matter, that the Secretary of War or
that any commander up and down the chain of command

(05:47):
has ordered the troops to do which would be considered illegal.
And then they start backtracking, and the backtracking is essentially that, well,
we were just trying to remind them of what their
duty is really by trying to undermine the military chain
of command. Now, why do I keep going back to
that phrase about undermining the military chain of command? Because

(06:12):
again Title eighteen, Section twenty three eighty seven of the
US Criminal Code, which is part of the US the
Military Code of Uniform Justice, makes it illegal to advise
counsel or in any manner, cause in subordination or refusal
of duty by any member of the military. It's a

(06:33):
pretty clear cut statute. Bear with me, let's go through
parts of it. Whoever, with the intent to interfere with,
impair or influence the loyalty, the morale, or the discipline
of the military or naval forces of the United States
by one, advises Council's urges or in any manner, causes

(06:53):
or attempts to cause in subordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty by any member of the military or naval
forces of the United States. That's number one or number two.
Distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed material
which advises councils or urges in subordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or

(07:18):
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 of the era thereof for

(07:39):
the five years next following his conviction. I emphasize, shall
be fined not more imprisoned not more than ten years,
and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States.
Now President Trump's first term office, we all know it

(08:02):
was sabotaged from within, led by James coney Is, then
the director of the FBI. There are all these different
elements of the United States law enforcement, our national security apparatus,
the intel communities, all conducted years long official government efforts
trying to do what trying to subvert Trump's authority as

(08:25):
the elected executive and the commander in chief of the
armed forces. In President Trump on behalf of not just
himself but all future presidents. Can't allow that to happen. Ever, again,
it is within his power to make leaders of the
self proclaimed so called resistance within the government to take

(08:46):
a step back, rethink their tactics, even when those individuals
are elective members of the United States Congress. Now this
is not a shield that protects them from the consequences
of behavior. This is potentially criminal, and I want to
explain why I think this is potentially criminal activity. It's
the Weekend with Michael Brown. Thanks for joining. Text lines

(09:09):
always open three three one zero three, keyword Michael, Michael.
I'll be right back. Welcome back to the Weekend with
Michael Brown. Glad to have you with me. I hope
everybody had a great Thanksgiving. We're talking about this video
that these members of Congress made that encourages in my opinion,

(09:29):
because it implies that President Trump, as commander in chief,
or perhaps the Secretary of War Pete Hegsath, maybe the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, somebody in somebody's you know,
some enlisted you know grunt's chain of command was issued
in illegal order, and they're trying to tell them, hey,

(09:52):
you can disobey illegal orders. Well, what are they? They
never named them, they never explain what they are. They
can't explain even why they did it, other than they
wanted to remind people of what they had the right
to do. But you take a young you know, perhaps

(10:14):
somebody from the inner city, somebody who you know, maybe
maybe got a ged and they decided to join the military,
and it turns out to be a little less, a
little less likable than what they thought it was going
to be. It turns out to be really tough. You
have to be disciplined. You know, they're getting you up

(10:34):
at four or five o'clock in the morning. You're doing
all this running and exercises and training. You got a
drill sergeant that's yelling at you, you have to dress
a certain way, you got a buzz cut, and suddenly
you can't do all the things that you used to
do when you were in high school. And suddenly you
don't like things, and you think what your commanding officer
is requiring you to do, well, that's just wrong. That's
just wrong. And then you see this video because you

(10:58):
know that the troops have all heard about it, troops
have all looked at it. And so here's some young
enlisted kid doesn't really know any better, isn't that well educated,
and suddenly says, yeah, I think my real sergeant is
making me do something that I don't want to do,
and so I'm just not going to do it. They
told me, I don't have to obey an illegal order. Wow,

(11:22):
is he going to well? I hope he doesn't wind up,
you know, wind up in Leavenworth, but he certainly could
wind up kicked out of the military, losing all of
his benefits, having a dishonorable discharge, which is going to
follow him for the rest of his life or her life.
So I think these people, these Congress critors, were truly

(11:43):
irresponsible in making this video. And now it's gone one
step further because the more I start looking at the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, the more I realized that
there's actually a statute that says, yeah, don't you dare
her go out and start trying to engage in activity.
These that you know, attempt to interfere with impair or influence.

(12:05):
Remember the loyalty, the morale, or the discipline of the
military or naval forces of the United States. This this act.
Those serving members of the government in the Congress that
made the video directing their comments at the active duty
military everything from what he won privates to O ten

(12:27):
admirals or generals, and then referencing quote this administration as
the subject of their so called advice and counsel. They
have potentially interfered with the chain of command, and they've
done so in a way that certainly reasonably could be
expected to cause insubordination or refusal of duty. They acted

(12:52):
recklessly in you know, if we were talking about civil
lawsuits taking outside the military for a moment, if we
were talking about, you know, a car accident. Were you
negligent because you failed to turn your signal ongue? Were
you negligent because you were speeding, you were doing something,
or maybe you were distracted in the car because you know,

(13:14):
a lot of states have where you can't you have
to have your phone hands free, but you were using
your phone to text something you have you have affirmatively
and negligently caused an accident. If you're texting on your phone,
staring down at your phone and your rear in somebody,
or you run a stop sign or a red light

(13:35):
or whatever it is, you're the one that is negligent
and you're the cause of that accident. What if that's
what these people have done. They've now potentially interfered with
the chain of command, and they've done so in a
way that does cause or could cause insubordination and a
refusal of duty. They have actually brought this investigation upon themselves.

(13:58):
They have invited this investigation by federal law enforcement under
the direction of the Attorney General, who's undertaking an examination
on the subject of this whether their words moved from
the realm of free speech protected by the First Amendment
to a violation of federal law that they themselves, as

(14:22):
members members of Congress, swore an oath to uphold. Now,
whether they cross that boundary is not for the Attorney
General to decide. If the evidence suggests they have, then
guess who it's up to decide whether or not they
violated the law. Twelve jurors of their peers, that's who.

(14:44):
But I think it is incumbent upon the Attorney General
to facilitate the investigation that might one day, you know,
someday lead to that question being asked of and then
answered by twelve jurors. So what should we do well,
I think the Attorney General should direct the National Security
Branch and the Public Corruption Section of the Criminal Division

(15:06):
of the Department of Justice to open a criminal grand
jury investigation. A grand jury investigation does not determine the
guilt or innocence. It only explores activity that has drawn
scrutiny to itself. Think about that, because that's what these
yahoos have done. They have drawn scrutiny to themselves. They

(15:28):
first make the video, then they go on, you know,
they go to every outland of the cabal that will
have them on, and they talk about it.

Speaker 2 (15:36):
They even go.

Speaker 1 (15:37):
Into hostile territory. By that, I mean some of these
liberals like Mark Kelly and Jason Crowe go on to
Fox News, and Fox News asks very specifically, what were
you trying to do? And can you give me examples?
And Jason Crow, congressman from here in Colorado, dances around

(15:57):
like some ballet dancer, just tip toying and purading around
everything other than answering the question. So they themselves are
the ones that have drawn the scrutiny. They you know,
you make a video, you send it out for the
entire world to see. You remember the United States Congress,
You remember the United States Senate. Some of them are

(16:19):
very well known. Some are former members of the intel community,
including the CIA. They know what their oath is. They
should know what the federal law is. I mean, after all,
they're the ones that write the laws. They should understand it.
And many of them are themselves lawyers, so there's no
excuse for this. And I want to remind you a

(16:40):
grand jury investigation is not the determinant of guilt. It
only explores that activity. So they would just be looking
at the video and all of the evidence surrounding the video.
The grand jury is just simply a tool used by
federal law enforcement to gather in about the suspect, the

(17:01):
suspect activity, and about the people who engaged in the
suspect activity. So the members that appear in this video
cited their official positions. I'm a former I'm a member
of Congress and a former member of the CIA. I
am a member of the United States Senate and a
former member of NASA and the United States Navy. I

(17:23):
am a former member of Congress, and I used to
be an Army ranger. They very specifically said who they were,
and by citing their official positions and their past military
service as an appeal to authority, which is what the
statute requires. So by doing that, they have invited themselves

(17:47):
an inquiry into their own conduct. Now, these statements were
not made on the floor of either the House of
Congress Houses of Congress, either the House or the Senate,
so they are not protected by the speech and debate clause.
If they'd made this statement on the floor of the
House or the floor of the Senate, they would be
protected by speeching and debate, but they did not. So

(18:08):
what should happen? It's the Weekend with Michael Brown. Text
the word Michael and Michael to three three, one zero three.
What should happen? That's next.

Speaker 2 (18:24):
Tonight. Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director
of talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, No, Brownie, You're
doing a heck of a job. The Weekend with Michael Brown.

Speaker 1 (18:32):
Hey, it's the Weekend with Michael Brown. Glad to have
you with me. I appreciate you tuning. I hope everybody
had a great Thanksgiving. So we're talking about this video
that these members of Congress did then encouraged members of
the military to order remind members of the military to
be kind of fair, that they have a right to
object to illegal orders and this whole video. And I mean,

(18:55):
it's been what almost it's been at least ten days
two weeks now since this video came out, and I
think it's backfired on them more than they expected. I
really think they thought that they were being really cool
by making this video and in so doing they would
get some attention. They would, you know, kind of slap
Donald Trump around a little bit. And now the blowback

(19:17):
from everybody, including like Joe Scarborough. Let's just see if
I can find that SoundBite. So one of them went
on to Josh Joe Scarborough's show on ms NOW used
to be MSNBC, and Joe Scarborough also asked the question,
so what were you referring to? What has Trump done
that was wrong? And no answer. You know, we know,

(19:39):
we were just trying to remind people. And Scarborough who
you know, he's a former Republican congressman from Florida. He's
he's not a dummy. I disagree with his politics, but
I've known Joe for twenty years or more. But his
response was amazing. That's the wrong answer, he said, if
you're going to make a video like this and you're

(20:00):
going to encourage people to look for or to engage
in disobedience, you better have a damn good reason why
and be able to give some examples. And to the
same point that I made earlier, you have a lot
of young people that enter the military that it's a
cultural shock for them. They're not accustomed to being ordered around,

(20:22):
told us you have to be up at a certain time,
do certain things, dress a certain way, act a certain way,
because that's part of the military discipline. And so you've
almost encouraged them to claim that something is unlawful or
an illegal order when it's nothing more than just basic
military discipline. So the members appealing or appearing in that

(20:46):
video by citing their official positions in their past military service,
are indeed appealing to authority, and every piece of evidence
that can be gathered concerning the decision to make, to produce,
to broadcast that video needs to be obtained through a
lawful investigation, and that would include all communications with everyone involved,

(21:12):
Various versions of the scripts, uncut video of each participant,
because you know, it's just a series of each of
them appearing at different times, so it's been cut and edited.
Get the entire video, get the final version, get all
the outtakes, the production records. Who funded this, who paid
for it? How did you distribute it? How was that

(21:33):
decision made? Were there was there anyone behind you, both
literally and figuratively, that funded this?

Speaker 2 (21:41):
Was it?

Speaker 1 (21:42):
George Soros's son, was it some Democrat party operative or donor.
Every participant needs to be questioned under oath before the
grand jury. Every person except the six officials who appear
in the video should be subpoena. The six officials should

(22:05):
be invited. Now, why do I say that everyone else
should be issued a subpoena. But the six officials should
simply be invited to testify before the grand jury. And
that's simply because you're not lawfully allowed to subpoena a
target of a criminal investigation. If a grand jury is

(22:29):
investigating something that they think some law that I violated,
that I was, I don't know, dealing drugs or you know,
violating some you know statute somewhere, you can't subpoena me
because you can't compel me to testify before the grand jury.
And you don't want me coming before the grand jury
and finding out, oh, I'm a target, and therefore I'm

(22:50):
going to invoke my Fifth Amendment rights not to testify
against myself. And suddenly the whole investigation goes from being
confidential to being very very public. At least that's what
I would do. I'd make it very public. In other words,
the people in this video have the right to remain silent,
and we should respect that right. But whether their words

(23:13):
are probable cause that a crime has been committed, either
under Section twenty three eighty seven or anything else, that's
a question for the grand jurors. It's a question for
grand jurors presented with as much factual evidence as the
Department of Justice can gather. Now, remember all six of

(23:35):
these yahoos gave their voices to a single video, one
single video. So the first inquiry ought to be whether
the sixth did you discuss that video among yourselves, did
you share what each of you were going to say,
did you write it out? Was there any sort of
script that you put together? And the reason I asked

(23:56):
those kinds of questions is because that the basis for
a conspiracy investigation and the venue for a conspiracy can
be in any district where any conspirator was present when
the conspiracy was formed, or any district where an overt

(24:19):
act in furtherance of the conspiracy took place. What do
I mean, Well, let's say they all gathered in one
office on Capitol Hill. Well, that would make the district
of Columbia, that would make that the proper jurisdiction. But
if they were all in their home offices in Arizona
and Colorado and Virginia and all the other different places

(24:41):
they were from, then that gives a broader opportunity. If
you can show a conspiracy, that gives you a broader
opportunity of which federal district court you would take this
case to. So there's a lot of things like that
that need to be investigated. A suitable venue, I think
would be the home state of any of the members

(25:02):
of Congress who appear in the video. And the reason
I say that is because every single one of them
announced their position in Congress as part of their introduction
of themselves, So that made the video an official act
on behalf of their constituents. You see, I think these
people were too smart behalf. They were too stupid by

(25:25):
a whole. They're so full of themselves and they're so
infused with Trumps arrangement syndrome that they really thought, oh,
let's do this, you know, let's pat ourselves on the back.
A member of Congress. I'm from such and such state,
and I used to serve in the CIA, I used
to serve in the Army Rangers. I used to be
an astronaut, blah blah blah whatever it is. So based

(25:46):
on the members of Congress who participated, these are the
districts they could be proper venue for criminal investigation and
a criminal trial. Senator Mark Kelly from Arizona, Senator at
least Scott Slopkin Michigan, Congresswoman Christy Hulahan, Eastern Pennsylvania Congressman

(26:06):
Chris Deluzio, Western Pennsylvania Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander New Hampshire, and
of course JSON Congressman Jason Crow Colorado. Of those choices,
if I were the one that was responsible for the investigation,
I would head for the Johnstown Division of the Western
District of Pennsylvania, where the Honorable Stephanie Haines presides. Why well.

(26:31):
Stephanie Hayes was born in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, nineteen sixty nine.
She graduated from law school. She clerk for Judge Eugenie
Fike on the sixteenth Judicial District. During her clerkship, she
was commissioned as a first lieutenant in the US Army
October one, nineteen ninety six. She entered the active duty
service in the United States Armies Judge Advocate General's Corps.

(26:55):
Now after completing her JAG Officer basic course, she reported
to the one hundred first Airborne Division in Fort Campbell, Kentucky,
and while at Fort Campbell, she earned her Air Assault Badge.
She served as a legal assistant attorney and a prosecutor.
In two she left active duty became an assistant US
Attorney in the Criminal Division for the Southern District of

(27:17):
West Virginia. Then she remained in the Army as a
JAG officer. In reserve capacity. She served as a criminal
Assistant US Attorney in the Southern District of West Virginia.
She went to the US Attorney's Office on April fourth
of twenty twenty one. She retired from the military in
the rank of colonel after twenty four a half years

(27:37):
of military service. Retired at the rank of colonel from
the judge after to the JAG Corps with twenty four
plus years of service. If I were going to indict
these people, I would want her to be the judge.
It's the Weekend with Michael Brown. Text lines always opened
three three Onnes zero three. Hey word Mike or Michael.

(27:58):
Hang tight, I'll be right back. Welcome back to the
Weekend with Michael Brown. Glad to have you with me.
Hope everybody had a great Thanksgiving. Remember text lines always
opened three three one zero three keyword Micaro Michael tell
me anything, ask me anything, do me a favor. You know,
it's the holidays. Go follow me on x at Michael

(28:20):
Brown USA. That can be your Thanksgiving and Christmas gift
altogether right in one Just follow me on x at
Michael Brown USA. So I went through why I would
like to see this case tried in Pennsylvania, because if indicted,
I really do want to see these military veterans or
a former CIA official in the case of Senator Slutkin.

(28:42):
I want them to complain that they can't get a
fair trial in the courtroom of Judge Haynes and in
front of the citizens of the Purple State of Pennsylvania
in and around Johnstown, Pennsylvania. I've been to Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
It's a wonderful little place in Pennsylvania. I want them tried.
If they're going to be tried now, there are obvious

(29:05):
problems with the language of Section twenty three eighty seven.
I can only find a handful of cases that have
ever been prosecuted under this section most of them around
World War Two. You see, the statue was passed back
in nineteen forty, and there were a couple of cases
around the time of the Vietnam War. The statute is

(29:26):
often challenged on First Amendment grounds, particularly in those eras
that were lost, on the basis that the language of
Section twenty three eighty seven is identical to some of
the really broad language found in the Espionage Act of
nineteen seventeen. And why is that important Because the Supreme

(29:47):
Court decisions regarding convictions under the Espionage Act were upheld
by the Supreme Court against First Amendment challenges. The Espionage
Act says that it shall be illegal to do this. Now,
I want you to think as I tell you what
the Espionage Act says. I want you to think about

(30:09):
what these yahoos were saying and doing in that video
and see if it doesn't track. The Espionage Act says
that it is illegal to willfully make or convey false
reports or false statements with the intent to interfere with
the operation or success of the military or naval forces

(30:32):
of the US, or to promote the success of its enemies,
or listen closely, willfully cause or attempt to cause in subordination, disloyalty, mutiny,
or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces
of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting

(30:54):
or listenment service of the United States, to the injury
of the service of the United States. A lot of
that language applies quite clearly to what they were doing
here now. Nineteen nineteen in a case that upheld that
language against a challenge based on the First Amendment. The
case was Chank versus the United States. I think we

(31:15):
actually talked about this case in this program before. Shank
was the General secretary of the US Socialist Party, and
he opposed the implementation of a draft, so he produced
these flyers advising young men to resist military service. Shank
was convicted of three counts under the Espionage Act, and
the Supreme Court unanimously upheld his conviction and also denied

(31:41):
the challenge under the First Amendment. The Court said this, words,
which ordinarily in many places would be within the freedom
of speech protected by the First Amendment Amendment, may become
subject to prohibition when those words are of such a
nature and used in such circumstances as to create a

(32:03):
clear and present danger that they will bring about the
substantive of evils which Congress has a right to prevent. Now,
Shank is the case He'll love this. Shank is the
case where Justice Holmes Oliver Wendell Holmes used the much
maligned analogy about shouting fire in a crowded theater. That

(32:27):
case introduced the concept that speech that creates a clear
and present danger to public safety did not enjoy First
Amendment protections. So the Supreme Court limited Shink's reach in
a later case, Brandenburg versus Ohio. That case is from
nineteen sixty nine by requiring that the speech at issue

(32:49):
in a case must tend to incite imminent lawless action.
But here's the difference. In the Brandenburg versus Ohio case.
It did not involve comments undermining military cohesion or respect
for the chain of command. You see, Brandenburg concerned speech
by the leader of the KKK that was alleged to

(33:12):
present a clear and present danger by encouraging criminal acts
that were unrelated to the military. So to the extent
that the Shank case can be read as validating a
prosecution for attempting to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty in the military or naval forces. Then that

(33:35):
part of its holding is not necessarily implicated or thrown
out by the later case in Brandenburg versus Ohio in
nineteen sixty nine. Then there was another case decided by
the Supreme Court at the same time, United States versus Debs.
That's where Eugene Debs was also convicted under the Espionage

(33:56):
Act because, as the court says, quote honor, about June sixteenth,
nineteen eighteen, in Canton, Ohio, the defendant caused and incided
and attempted to cause an insight in subordination, disloyalty, mutiny,
and refusal of duty in the military and naval forces
of the US, and with intent so too, delivered to

(34:18):
an assembly of people a public speech. Wait a minute,
isn't that kind of exactly what they were doing, Except
this wasn't nineteen eighteen. This was twenty twenty five. So
instead of standing in the town square in Canton, Ohio
and delivering his speech trying to get people to disobey
the military, they went on TikTok, They went on Facebook,

(34:42):
they went on Instagram, and they made a video and
they spliced it up and cut it up and edited
it all encouraging people to want, oh, disobey illegal orders. Okay,
what illegal Well, we can't name any I think this
case has more potential for a conviction than we've seen

(35:03):
since nineteen eighteen, and just because nineteen eighteen was a
long time ago, it's still solid law. Like Shank the
Deb's decision, I'm sure it's been criticized over the years,
and it was narrowed by Brandenburg, but not it what
didn't overrule it, and it applied to something other than

(35:26):
the military. More so even than Shank. The Deb's decision
dealt not with encouraging lawlessness, but with undermining good order
and discipline in the military by encouraging active duty military
personnel to disobey the chain of command. When President Trump

(35:48):
made reference to sedition, and that term has been tossed
around social media, it's just way too much. This seems
a bit wild eyed to me. Sedition involves overthrown the
government by force. The only Title eighteen criminal statue referring
to sedition is the statute that criminalizes seditious conspiracy that

(36:09):
was passed by Congress during the Civil War. The statute
doesn't require an actual active sedition. It only requires an
agreement by a couple of people to engage in sedition.
So I think that Trump was off base by saying
they've engaged in sedition and they ought to be hanged.
I wish the President in that case would just shut
up and let the Department of Justice do what it

(36:30):
needs to do. Their comments in this video are perfectly
acceptable in the context of policy debates when it's done
inside of Congress, because that's part of their role as lawmakers,
and so they're entitled to use the authority of their
office to advocate to other members of Congress and move
them to pass laws that addresses their concerns about the

(36:52):
administration's so called execution of foreign policy around the world.
But that's not what they did. They undermine the respect
for the chain of command right up to and including
the President, who serves as the commander in chief, and
that's outside the boundaries of their lawful authorities as an
elected member of Congress or the United States Senate. You know,

(37:16):
it just seems to me that Johnstown would be a
great place to hold a trial of five or six
congressmen and senators. It's the weekend with Michael Brown. Text
lines always opened three three one zero three keyword Michael Michael,
I'll be right back.