The Seditious Ring Leader in the senate is finally asked the hard questions.

[Vetteman]

We don't care if she's white you guys are the race obsesses bigots, there is no such thing as her own damn property AND she's an insurectionist.

She should be deported with the illegals she's fighting for.

It's hard being on the WRONG SIDE OF DEMOCRACY....

Dumbass liberals thinking they have their own damn property. They can’t scream communism 24/7 and then come back and say they own land.

 

[DeluxAuto]

I've been wrong.

I don't deny reality or create my own.

I ask you to back up your bullshit.....and you never do.

I have evidence and court rulings. You have your hurt fee fees.

 

[Rightguide]

You deny reality, create your own, and then ask sane people to argue with you about your fantasy, where you can obviously never be wrong.

In your case, being obviously wrong has never been a fantasy but instead a painful reality. In your case, being wrong isn’t a fantasy, it’s the one grim reality you manage to show up for every day.

 

[DeluxAuto]

In your case, being obviously wrong has never been a fantasy but instead a painful reality. In your case, being wrong isn’t a fantasy, it’s the one grim reality you manage to show up for every day.

I'm talking about already decided legal cases, idiot. You jumped up to get beat down.

 

[mstrman]

 

[Chadrone]

I have evidence and court rulings. You have your hurt fee fees.

Bluster.....but still nothing of any substance. Projecting about your fee fees.

 

[DeluxAuto]

I have evidence

Bluster.

I have evidence and court rulings

but still nothing of any substance

 

[Chadrone]

Still just more bluster.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Still just more bluster.

This might help, idiot.

 

[Bray123]

At least we know what insurrection is, as defined by Trump and blaming (as to be expected) the Communist Liberal Democrats whilst describing J6.

“This was an insurrection caused by Nancy Pelosi.”

 

[DeluxAuto]

At least we know what insurrection is, as defined by Trump and blaming (as to be expected) the Communist Liberal Democrats whilst describing J6.

“This was an insurrection caused by Nancy Pelosi.”

When you have an ignorant MAGAt screaming shit about democracy whilst denying a decision by an American jury, there's really not much left to say.

 

[dmallord]

The whole point of their endeavor was to imply that illegal orders were being given to sow discord in the ranks of the military and undermine the duly elected President.

No — the point of the video was simply to restate a core principle of military service: lawful orders must be followed, and unlawful orders must be refused. That’s not political messaging. It’s the plain language of the UCMJ, repeated in every service member’s training.

The video was measured, factual, and clearly written. It didn’t accuse anyone of issuing unlawful orders. It didn’t hint that such orders were happening. It reiterated doctrine that has existed for decades.

You’ve chosen to reinterpret that neutrality as an act of “sowing discord,” but that interpretation collapses the moment you watch what was actually said.

And while no one has claimed that Trump has issued an illegal military order, there are people questioning the legality and purpose of the recent strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug boats. Those concerns have been stated publicly, and they may well be the backdrop that prompted members of Congress to remind service members of their obligations under the law.

If someone truly wanted to sow discord inside the ranks, they wouldn’t do it by calmly reaffirming UCMJ principles. They’d do it by publicly calling the president a traitor or fantasizing about extralegal punishment — which we have, unfortunately, already seen from Trump himself. That’s where the real attempt to undermine authority is coming from.

 

[latecomer91364]

None of the seditious Demfucks could point to a single 'illegal' command given to any troops under the Trump administration.

NOT ONE.

So, what was the purpose of making this video?

It is a feeble attempt to sow discontent and uncertainty among the heroes who have volunteered to risk their lives to protect our country and it's citizens.

Asshole Leftards, like the traitorous vermin in the video and the mindless assfucks who support them will try to hide behind saying "It's purely informational."

There are many "informational messages" they could have conveyed, so why this, when there is no evidence that any service member has been issued a single 'illegal' order?

Once again, what was the purpose of making this video?

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

No — the point of the video was simply to restate a core principle of military service: lawful orders must be followed, and unlawful orders must be refused. That’s not political messaging. It’s the plain language of the UCMJ, repeated in every service member’s training.

The video was measured, factual, and clearly written. It didn’t accuse anyone of issuing unlawful orders. It didn’t hint that such orders were happening. It reiterated doctrine that has existed for decades.

You’ve chosen to reinterpret that neutrality as an act of “sowing discord,” but that interpretation collapses the moment you watch what was actually said.

And while no one has claimed that Trump has issued an illegal military order, there are people questioning the legality and purpose of the recent strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug boats. Those concerns have been stated publicly, and they may well be the backdrop that prompted members of Congress to remind service members of their obligations under the law.

If someone truly wanted to sow discord inside the ranks, they wouldn’t do it by calmly reaffirming UCMJ principles. They’d do it by publicly calling the president a traitor or fantasizing about extralegal punishment — which we have, unfortunately, already seen from Trump himself. That’s where the real attempt to undermine authority is coming from.

No, the video(s) were a tri-pronged attack on this administration. I’ve outlined it on another thread.

The US Military doesn’t need the UCMJ “restated” to them from Seditious congressmen. Especially from the two CIA scum who put this together. PSYOPs if I’ve ever seen one. Everyone can see clearly what they did. Well…all except the Useful Idiots who would swallow any load a Radicalized democrat Pig fed them.

That it backfired hilariously on them is sweet justice.

 

[ll74]

No, the video(s) were a tri-pronged attack on this administration. I’ve outlined it on another thread.

The US Military doesn’t need the UCMJ “restated” to them from Seditious congressmen. Especially from the two CIA scum who put this together. PSYOPs if I’ve ever seen one. Everyone can see clearly what they did. Well…all except the Useful Idiots who would swallow any load a Radicalized democrat Pig fed them.

That it backfired hilariously on them is sweet justice.

Lol.
This wasn't sedition.

Sorry Charlie.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

Well, well, well…looks like it may be a four-prong attack..

I grabbed this off another posted thread. So, this is a coordinated attack on the military. Radicalized democrat Pigs have now moved into billboards with the same message.

I thought the Seditious Six video came out of left field, but it’s becoming clear it was just the first salvo of many to come.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

Lol.
This wasn't sedition.

Sorry Charlie.

Keep saying it. It may come true.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Well, well, well…looks like it may be a four-prong attack..

I grabbed this off another posted thread. So, this is a coordinated attack on the military. Radicalized democrat Pigs have now moved into billboards with the same message.

I thought the Seditious Six video came out of left field, but it’s becoming clear it was just the first salvo of many to come.

That takes $$$$$$, follow the $$$$$.

 

[ll74]

Keep saying it. It may come true.

Yes, I get that is your philosophy.

 

[Rightguide]

No, the video(s) were a tri-pronged attack on this administration. I’ve outlined it on another thread.

The US Military doesn’t need the UCMJ “restated” to them from Seditious congressmen. Especially from the two CIA scum who put this together. PSYOPs if I’ve ever seen one. Everyone can see clearly what they did. Well…all except the Useful Idiots who would swallow any load a Radicalized democrat Pig fed them.

That it backfired hilariously on them is sweet justice.

This was an attempt at a color revolution by the CIA. It needs to be gutted and rebuilt.

 

[ll74]

Lol.....pizza from comet is always entertaining

 

[Rightguide]

I'm talking about already decided legal cases, idiot. You jumped up to get beat down.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1993058243229225434

18 U.S. Code § 2387 - Activities affecting armed forces generally​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
(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.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 811; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 46, 63 Stat. 96; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title V, § 515(f)(2), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3236.)

In addition they can be prosecuted under the UCMJ. If a retired officer uses their rank, reputation, or platform to influence active-duty service members to disobey lawful orders, they can be prosecuted under several UCMJ articles, most notably Articles 92, 94, and 134. Look them up for yourself.

 

[ll74]

18 U.S. Code § 2387 - Activities affecting armed forces generally​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
(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.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 811; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 46, 63 Stat. 96; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title V, § 515(f)(2), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3236.)

In addition they can be prosecuted under the UCMJ. If a retired officer uses their rank, reputation, or platform to influence active-duty service members to disobey lawful orders, they can be prosecuted under several UCMJ articles, most notably Articles 92, 94, and 134. Look them up for yourself.

It isn't sedition

 

[DeluxAuto]

disobey lawful orders

No one has said anything about disobeying lawful orders, idiot.

Look them up for yourself.

You first, ignoramus.

Learn to read.

 

[AlexBailey]

No, the video(s) were a tri-pronged attack on this administration. I’ve outlined it on another thread.

It’s so telling, and you make it abundantly clear:

Trump and MAGA consider it an attack on the administration to encourage soldiers to disobey illegal orders.


A responsible and appropriate response from any honest POTUS would have been, “Well yeah. Of course.”