12-27-25 The Weekend Hour 1: Can You Disobey the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

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. Brownie, no, Brownie, You're doing
a heck of a job The Weekend with Michael Brown
broadcasting from Denver, Colorado.

Speaker 1 (00:11):
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 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
zero three, use the keyword Mike or Michael e the
one tell me anything or ask me anything, three three

(00:31):
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
congressman from Colorado, and the others who appear on video,

(00:53):
and to me, it appears that they're undermining, or at
least trying to undermind, the military chain of command. Can
I just find it wrong? If you don't remember the
video here it is is or Mark Kelly, Representative Chris Delusios,
and your Representative Chrissy Hulahan.

Speaker 2 (01:10):
Congressman Jason Crowe. I was a captain in the United
States Navy, former CIA officer, former Navy, 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 Americans safe.
We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.

Speaker 1 (01:29):
Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk.

Speaker 2 (01:33):
This administration is hitting our uniform military and intelligence community
professionals against American citizens like us. You all swore an
oath this constitution. Right now, the threats to our constitution
aren't just coming from road, but from right here at home.
Our rows are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You
can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders.

Speaker 1 (01:57):
No one has to carry out orders that violate the
law for our constitution.

Speaker 2 (02:01):
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 and the Army or maybe the Air Force,
your vigilance is critical.

Speaker 1 (02:11):
And know that we happier back because now more than
ever the American people need you.

Speaker 2 (02:16):
We need you to stand up for our laws on
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 (02:29):
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,

(02:51):
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,

(03:12):
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

(03:38):
that they are going to maybe open an investigation of
all those caveats holidays. I don't know whether they will
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 Title eighteen US Code,
Section twenty three eighty seven, I got to thinking that

(04:02):
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 attack on the drug vessels

(04:22):
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 on the Senate or the House floor,

(04:45):
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 and just disobey in
the illegal order really does undermine the military chain of command. Now,

(05:07):
since they'd released the video, there have been numerous instances
where they have 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 are some examples? And they

(05:30):
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 has ordered the troops to

(05:51):
do which would be considered illegal. And then they start backtracking,
and the backtracking is essentially that, well, we were just
trying to mind 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 again, Title eighteen,

(06:16):
Section twenty three eighty seven of the US Criminal Code,
which is a 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 pretty clear

(06:36):
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 or attempts to cause in subordination, disloyalty, mutiny,

(07:01):
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 refusal of duty by any member of the military

(07:23):
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 the five years next following his conviction. I emphasize,

(07:48):
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 in office, we all know it
was sabotaged from within, led by James Cony, is then

(08:09):
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
the elected executive and the commander in chief of the

(08:32):
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
a step back, rethink their tactics, even when those individuals

(08:55):
are elective members of the United States Congress. Now, this
is not a shield that protects them from the consequences
of behavior that 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
always open three three one zero three, keyword Michael, Michael.

(09:15):
I'll be right back. Welcome back to the Weekend with
Michael Brown. Glad to have you with me. We're talking
about this video that these members of Congress made that
encourages in my opinion, because it implies that President Trump

(09:37):
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, you can disobey illegal orders. Well,

(09:58):
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 somebody from the inner city, somebody who
you know, maybe maybe got a ged and they decided

(10:22):
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 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

(10:43):
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
some of 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 know that the troops of all about
it troops have all looked at it. And so here's

(11:03):
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, is he going to Well? I

(11:24):
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 irresponsible in making this video. And

(11:46):
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 activities that, you know, attempt to interfere with,
impair or influence. Remember the loyalty, the morale, or the

(12:08):
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 admirals or generals, and then referencing quote

(12:30):
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.

(12:51):
They acted recklessly in you know, if we were talking
about civil lawsuits, take outside the military for a moment,
talking about, you know, a car accident. Were you negligent
because you failed to turn your signal on? Were you
negligent because you were speeding, you were doing something, or

(13:11):
maybe you were distracted in the car because you know,
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 if you're texting
on your phone, staring down at your phone and your
rear in somebody, or you run a stop sign or

(13:34):
a red light 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
in subordination and a refusal of duty. They have actually

(13:55):
brought this investigation upon themselves. They have invited this investment
mitigation 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

(14:19):
law that they themselves, as 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

(14:41):
their peers, that's who. 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

(15:04):
of the Criminal Division 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

(15:26):
scrutiny to themselves. They first make the video, then they
go on you know, They go to every island of
the cabal that will have them on, and they talk
about it. They even go 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

(15:50):
can you give me examples? And Jason Crowe, congressman from
here in Colorado, dances around like some ballet dancer, just
up toying and purreading around everything other than answering the question.
So they themselves are the ones that have drawn the scrutiny.
They you make a video, you send it out for

(16:12):
the entire world to see. You remember the United States Congress,
You remember the United States Senate. Some of them are
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.

(16:33):
And many of them are themselves lawyers. So there's no
excuse for this. And I want to remind you a
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.

(16:54):
The grand jury is just simply a tool used by
federal law enforcement to gather information about the suspect, the
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

(17:17):
am a member of the United States Senate and a
former member of NASA and the United States Navy. I'm
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

(17:40):
statute requires. So by doing that, they have invited themselves
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 made this statement on the floor of the

(18:01):
House or the floor of the Senate, they would be
protected by speeching and Debate but they did not, So
what should happen? It's the Weekend with Michael Brown. Text
the word Michael Michael to three three one zero three.
What should happen? That's next tonight. Michael Brown joins me here.

Speaker 2 (18:22):
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 (18:30):
Hey' so the Weekend with Michael Brown. Glad to have
you with me. I appreciate you tuning in. So we're
talking about this video that these members of Congress did
then encouraged members of the military to ordery mind members
of the military to be kind of fair, that they
have a right to object to illegal orders, and this
whole video backfired on them more than they expected. I

(18:53):
really think they thought that they were being really cool
by making this video, and in so doing they beget
some of tension. They would, you know, kind of slap
Donald Trump around a little bit. And now the blowback
from everybody, including like Joe Scarborough. I should see if
I can find that SoundBite. So one of them went
on to Josh Joe Scarborough's show on ms NOW used

(19:16):
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,
we were just trying to remind people. And Scarborough who

(19:37):
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
going to encourage people to look for or to enga

(20:00):
age and 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, told us you have to be up at
a certain time, do certain things, dress a certain way

(20:21):
at 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

(20:42):
appearing in that 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

(21:04):
include all communications with everyone involved. 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.

(21:25):
Who funded this? Who paid for it? How did you
distribute it? How was that decision made? Where there was
there anyone behind you, both literally and figuratively, that funded this?
Was it George Soros's son? Was it some Democrat party
operative or donor? Every participant needs to be questioned under

(21:49):
oath before the grand jury. Every person except the six
officials who appear in the video should be subpoened. The
six officials should be invited. Now why do I say
that everyone else should be issued a subpoena, but the

(22:09):
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 investigating something that they think some law
that I violated, that I was I don't know, dealing

(22:32):
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 going to invoke my Fifth
Amendment rights not to testify against myself. And suddenly the

(22:53):
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 are probable cause that
a crime has been committed, either under Section twenty three

(23:17):
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 these yahoos gave their voices to
a single video, one single video. So the first inquiry

(23:41):
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 those kinds of questions is because
that could provide the basis or it can conspiracy investigation.

(24:02):
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 act in furtherance of
the conspiracy took place. What do I mean, Well, let's

(24:23):
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 they were from, then that
gives a broader opportunity. If you can show a conspiracy,

(24:45):
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 of Congress who appear in
the video. And the reason I say that is because

(25:06):
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 a whole. They're so full
of themselves and they're so infused with Trumps arrangement syndrome

(25:29):
that they really thought, oh, let's do this. You know,
let's pat ourselves on the back. We're 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 on the members of
Congress who participated, these are the districts they could be

(25:49):
proper venue for criminal investigation and a criminal trial. Senator
Mark Kelly from Arizona, Senator at least Scott Slutkin, Michigan.
Congresswoman Christy Hulahan Eastern Pennsylvania, Congressman Chris Deluzio Western Pennsylvania,
Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander New Hampshire, and of course Congressman Jason

(26:12):
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. Stephanie Haynes was
born in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Nineteen sixty nine. She graduated from

(26:35):
law school. She clerked 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 Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps. Now after completing
her JAG Officer basic course, she reported to the one

(26:58):
hundred and 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
West Virginia. Then she remained in the Army as a

(27:20):
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
of military service. Retired at the rank of colonel from

(27:41):
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 one zero three. He worred MIKEA or Michael.
Hang tight, I'll be right back. Welcome back to the

(28:06):
Weekend with Michael Brown. Glad to have you with me. Member.
Text Lines always open three to 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 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

(28:28):
see these military veterans or a former CIA official in
the case of Senator Slutkin. 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.

(28:48):
I've been to Johnstown, Pennsylvania. It's a wonderful little place
in Pennsylvania. That's where I want them tried, if they're
going to be tried now. There are obvious problems with
the language of Section twenty three eighty seven. I can
only find a handful of cases that have ever been

(29:11):
prosecuted under this section, most of them around World War II.
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 often challenged on
First Amendment grounds, particularly in those eras that were lost,

(29:32):
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 Court decisions regarding
convictions under the Espionage Act were upheld by the Supreme
Court against First Amendment challenges. The Espionage Act says that

(29:57):
it shall be illegal to do the Now I want
you to think as I tell you what the Espionage
Act says. I want you to think about what these
yahoos were saying and doing in that video and see
if it doesn't track. The Espionage Act says that it

(30:18):
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 of the US,
or to promote the success of its enemies, or listen closely,
willfully cause or attempt to cause in subordination, disloyalty, mutiny,

(30:44):
or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces
of the United States, or shall wilfully obstruct the recruiting
or listenment service of the United States, to the injury
of the service of the United States. I think a
lot of that language applies quite clearly to what they
were doing here now. Nineteen nineteen in a case that

(31:06):
upheld that language against a challenge based on the First Amendment.
The case was Chank versus United States. I think we
actually talked about this case on 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

(31:28):
was convicted of three counts under the Espionage Act, and
the Supreme Court unanimously upheld his conviction and also denied
the challenge under the First Amendment. The Court said this,
words which ordinarily, in many places would be within the

(31:49):
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 clear and present danger that they will bring about
the substantive of evils which Congress has a right to prevent. Now,

(32:11):
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
case introduced the concept that speech that creates a clear
and present danger to public safety did not enjoy First

(32:35):
Amendment protections, so the Supreme Court limited Shank's reach. In
a later case, Brandenburg versus Ohio. That case is from
nineteen sixty nine, by requiring that the speech at issue
in a case must tend to incite imminent lawless action.
But here's the difference. In the Brandenburg versus Ohio case.

(32:57):
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
present a clear and present danger by encouraging criminal acts
that were unrelated to the military. So to the extent

(33:19):
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
part of its holding is not necessarily implicated or thrown
out by the later case in Brandenburg versus Ohio in

(33:41):
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
Act because, as the court says, quote on or about
June sixteenth, nineteen eight, in Canton, Ohio, the defendant caused

(34:03):
and incided and attempted to cause an insight in subordination, disloyalty,
mutiny and refusal of dutying the military and naval forces
of the US and with intent so too, delivered to
an assembly of people a public speech. Wait a minute,
isn't that kind of exactly what they were doing, Except

(34:24):
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,
they went on Instagram, and they made a video and
they spliced it up and cut it up and edited

(34:46):
this 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
since nineteen eighteen, And just because nineteen eighteen was a

(35:07):
long time ago, it's still solid law. Like shank the
Dev's decision. I'm sure it's been criticized over the years,
and it was narrowed by Brandenburg, but not it didn't
overrule it, and it applied to something other than the military.
More so, even than Shank. The deb's decision dealt not

(35:29):
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 made reference
to sedition, and that term has been tossed around social media,

(35:51):
it's just way too much. This seems a bit wild
eyed to me. Sedition involves overthrowing the government by force.
The only Title eighteen criminal statute referring to sedition is
the statue that criminalizes seditious conspiracy that was passed by
Congress during the Civil War. The statute doesn't require an

(36:12):
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 needs to do.
Their comments in this video are perfectly acceptable in the

(36:35):
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 administration's so
called execution of foreign policy around the world. But that's

(36:56):
not what they did. They undermined the respect for the
chain of man right up to an 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, it
just seems to me that Johnstown would be a great

(37:17):
place to hold a trial of five or six Congressmen
and senators. It's the weekend with Michael Brown. Text Lines
always opened three to three, one zero three, keyword Michael, Michael.
I'll be right back.