GASLIGHTING: Sunday Shows Platform ‘Seditious’ Congresscritters

Jorge Bonilla
November 23rd, 2025 8:02 PM

Text to Speech

00:00 00:00
Font Size

The prospects of the Democrat members of Congress behind the viral “illegal orders” video being booked on the Elitist Media’s Sunday shows were as predictable as the Sun rising in the East, and as certain as death and taxes. Also predictable: that the media would, with varying degrees, facilitate their continued gaslighting of the American public.

Watch as ABC’s Martha Raddatz is barely able to contain U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI):

SLOTKIN: So, I think the reason we put that statement out is because the sheer number of, frankly, young officers who are coming to us and saying, “I just am not sure. What do I do? You know, I'm in SOUTHCOM and I'm involved. In the National Guard, I'm just not sure, what do I do?” And I think, look, you don't have to take my word for it. We've had report after report of legal officer- JAG officers, coming forward and saying, “look, I push back on this. I'm not sure that this is legal.” There is such things as illegal orders. That's why it's in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Going back to Nuremberg, right? And it's just a -- it's a totally benign statement. And if the president is concerned about it, then he should stay deeply within the law. But I think it's important to know it's not hypothetical, right? This president in the last administration, his last administration, asked his Secretary of Defense and his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to, quote, "shoot at their legs” at unarmed protesters in front of the White House that he wanted moved.

RADDATZ: Actually, I know -- I know you're talking about Mark Esper's book.

SLOTKIN: Yeah.

RADDATZ: He didn't exactly say that. He said the president suggested that, but they were never ordered to do that.

SLOTKIN: And he got out of the Oval Office quickly so that he wasn't told to actually do it. And I give him a lot of credit for that. I give him a lot of credit.

RADDATZ: Do you -- so -- so, let's talk right now. Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?

SLOTKIN: To my knowledge, I -- I am not aware of things that are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related to Venezuela.

Raddatz made an attempt at fact-checking Slotkin but there was a blizzard of spin to get through. In the blink of an eye, Slotkin went from saying that President Donald Trump ordered protesters shot in the legs, to being glad former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper ran out of the Oval Office before such an order was given. And Raddatz does little to try to push back on Slotkin’s evocation of “A Few Good Men” as an underlying reason for the video stunt.

Things were just as mixed on CBS’s Face the Nation. Host Margaret Brennan interviewed two of the video’s protagonists. First up: U.S. Representative Jason Crow D-CO).

MARGARET BRENNAN: How do you respond to these allegations from your colleagues, fellow veterans, that what you have put out there is weakening and corrosive to the military?

JASON CROW: Well, these, unfortunately, are some of Trump's core supporters that are rallying behind the president. And they know better. They know exactly the difference between lawful versus unlawful. We were very clear in the video that what we're talking about is unlawful orders. You have the president's spokesperson going on – into a press conference this past week and saying that we called for people to disobey lawful orders. They're simply lying because the truth is unacceptable to them. It's unacceptable. We wanted to start a conversation, and we did, about the dangerous rhetoric this president is using and the threats that he's made to use our military in an unlawful way, because…

BRENNAN: Specifically what?

CROW: Well, send troops into Chicago, send troops into polling stations, kill terrorists' families, arrest and execute…

BRENNAN: He hasn't done those things.

CROW: … arrest and execute members of Congress, shoot peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square. Need I go on? He has a history of doing this. And if we wait until the moment that he gives a manifestly unlawful order to a young soldier, then we have failed them. We have to start that conversation now and get people thinking about the distinction, which is exactly what we did.

BRENNAN: Yes. So those were comments, not orders he gave, and social media posts and the like. But I hear you that words matter.

Brennan almost seems apologetic for having to fact-check Crow, hence that sop about “words matter.” But, here again, there is nothing resembling an actual factual basis that could credibly underlie an allegation of illegal orders. We see again the accusation of Trump giving an order to shoot protesters (“Lafayette Park”), with zero evidence and zero pushback. 

Brennan then turns to Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and doesn’t even bother with a fact-check:

MARGARET BRENNAN: But is that why you made this video?

MARK KELLY: No. No.

BRENNAN: OK.

KELLY: The reason why we made this video is a couple things.

This president, from before he was in office as he was a candidate to the time he was in office in his first administration, has said things that cause us great concern.

BRENNAN: Yes.

KELLY: There is a trend here.

BRENNAN: OK.

KELLY: When he was running for president the first time, he talked about he wanted the military – he said he would – he would – the military should be killing the families of terrorists.

BRENNAN: Yes.

KELLY: And when he was told that that was illegal – this was on a debate stage – he basically said that the military will not refuse to follow my orders…

BRENNAN: Yes.

KELLY: … that they will carry out his orders regardless of what they were.

Shooting protesters in the legs is something he brought up in his first administration.

BRENNAN: Right.

KELLY: And, thankfully, Mark Esper, his secretary of defense…

BRENNAN: Right.

KELLY: … and Mark Milley, you know, basically told him, you cannot do that. If they weren't there, think of what possibly could have happened.

BRENNAN: Well, I need…

KELLY: So, we're concerned…

BRENNAN: Yes. Oh, I'm sorry.

KELLY: Go ahead.

BRENNAN: I just want to make sure I get to you on Ukraine, because there's so much happening.

KELLY: OK.

BRENNAN: And I know you're such a big supporter of Ukraine.

There must have been a memo to go out because all three of these members of Congress made some form of invocation of Lafayette Park. How these three were handled was spotty at best. Raddatz seemed to have more of an interest to push back than Brennan, but barely so. And then there was the matter of legality. Multiple experts have come forward to say that the video may not meet the legal definition of “sedition”, but most certainly meets the elements of 18 USC §2387:

(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:

(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or

(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States-

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

(b) For the purposes of this section, the term "military or naval forces of the United States" includes the Army of the United States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the master, officers, and crew of such vessel.

The Elitist Media mouthpieces simply took the liberals’ assertions at face value, so as to proceed with the broader Trumpwashed coverage. For the most part, the legislators appeared on these shows to defend themselves against charges of sedition- as opposed to answering questions about the substance of what they said amidst accusations of the video in question being part of a broader operation to undermine cohesion among the troops as sensitive operations are underway in the Caribbean. 

Exit question: if charges were to be filed pursuant to Section 2387, how soon before we hear squeals of “retribution” from the same media elites pushing the video today?

 

Donor Privacy Policy