Subject: Re: Regarding "hanging"
The video by the Dems was clearly intended to be an attack on Trump, and intended to imply, with somewhat plausible deniability, that they were suggesting that each and every person in the military should use their personal judgment to actively question any order they should get and use their own personal judgment as to whether it was "legal" or "illegal," and then follow their own conscience about it. But the obvious purpose was to insinuate that Trump was giving unlawful orders.

Basically trying to soft-undermine military discipline (and also within the intelligence community). It's like when the 51 intelligence community people with the letter suggesting Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation" tried to claim no, they didn't ever SAY it WAS Russian disinformation; it just had "all the earmarks" of Russian disinformation.

An extremely "legalistic" and pedantic way of communication. But you can't just look at the statement or letter or video piecemeal. What was the overall thrust, intent, or purpose in the first place?

It was to communicate to the soldiers and intelligence officers that they should not trust their chain of command, with Trump at its head. That they should expect to receive and be wary of receiving illegal orders. That they should use their own personal judgment and feelings to determine what was a valid order, what was not a valid order--but with zero objective standards or criteria. That's not how it works.

The video Dems didn't provide a single specific example of what they deemed an illegal order. Nor did they provide objective guidelines for how an individual person in the armed forces should try to determine an order's legality or illegality. Nor did they counsel that a confused military personnel should bring the issues up through their chain of command; or to a JAG officer.

It was pure unadulterated psyops propaganda, it was destructive, was for political gain, and yet: cowardly.

And you cannot successfully take a run at Trump like that and expect it to be a winning play.

Trump's response was perfect: "They're traitors, they should hang." Over the top, hyperbole, but communicating the point that these politicians were not acting for the good of the country, and did not care about the good of the country. And one of the video Dems even (ridiculously) claimed that Trump "threatened" her.

No, he didn't. And she's a coward. A better response would have been to use her platform to clarify her view of what an illegal order from Trump, or a commander on behalf of Trump, would comprise. Use examples from history. Use present-day incidents that she sincerely thinks constitutes an illegal order. Even mocking the "threat."

She did something stupid serving only to undermine military discipline for her own political benefit, she got called out, and she's whining because sticks and stones apparently do break bones.

Lady, if you are making a point with your colleagues of actually telling people in the armed services that they need to disobey orders that they consider "illegal," with absolutely no guidance as to what that even means, you are setting them up for being charged with insubordination and possibly court martialed. You are deliberately undermining the chain of command and military discipline. You are possibly putting their lives and those of their comrades at arms at risk. For no reason other than your own political gain.

Will you actually hang? No. Should your political career hang in a figurative sense?

Absolutely.