Trump Posts Death Threats Aimed at “Seditious” Democrats
On Tuesday, November 18, six Congressional Democrats, all of whom are veterans, posted a moving message to members of the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, reminding them of their oath of allegiance to the Constitution and their right to refuse to follow illegal or unlawful orders. Their message to service members was “we've got your back.” We shared this post.
Introducing themselves as Senator Elissa Slotkin, Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Chris Deluzio, Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander, Representative Chrissy Houlahan, and Congressman Jason Crow, these Democrats described positions each held in various branches of the Armed Forces. Their message: “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American Citizens.”
While recent violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibit federal troops from participating in law enforcement, by the Trump Administration spring immediately to mind, there are numerous additional concerns. The sobering message these members of Congress delivered is both dire and inspiring.
We simply cannot have our military used against us in an effort to undermine the Constitution and the individual rights we enjoy as Americans.
Trump’s unhinged responses paint a stark picture of the state of leadership in our country. “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR punishable by DEATH!” the president posted to his Truth Social account.
“HANG THEM. GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD” stated a post by the Washington Examiner and shared by Donald Trump.
As Commander in Chief, Trump clearly has choices about how to respond in situations such as this. One option might include adding his own voice to the post created by these six Congressional Democrats. The mere suggestion that refusing to follow unlawful orders amounts to an admission that Trump doesn’t support the core principles enshrined in our Constitution.
Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) states in regard to the lawful status of a direct order: "Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it."
Article 92 also references subparagraph 16.c of the UCMJ, which states the following:
"Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.”
What will the stances of our own Republican representatives in the Washington State legislature and 5th Congressional District be on this threat?
Chris Murphy, Democratic Senator from Connecticut, responded with a fiery message, imploring “If you’re a person of influence in this country and you haven’t picked a side, maybe now would be the time to pick a f‑‑‑ing side.”
Trump. Or the Constitution.