Weakened and desperate, Trump threatens members of Congress November 21, 2025 Robert B. Hubbell Nov 21 Weakened and desperate after his 527-1 loss in Congress over the release of the Epstein files, Trump created a new controversy by threatening members of Congress with execution for sedition and treason. See NYTimes, President Calls Democrats’ Video to Military ‘Punishable by Death’. (Accessible to all.) Their (alleged) crime? They posted a video reminding members of the military that they can refuse to obey illegal orders—an incontestable statement of the law, as codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and relevant case law. Per the UCMJ, it is a crime to “fail[] to obey any lawful general order,” and per relevant caselaw, e.g., US v. Lieutenant William Calley, a member of the military can be criminally liable for following a superior’s order if the order is “one which a man of ordinary sense and understanding would, under the circumstances, know to be unlawful . . . .”) The video appears here, and I urge you to watch it. The video features Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, and Representatives Chris Deluzio, Chrissy Houlahan, and Jason Crow, all of whom served the US government in the military or intelligence community. The text of the video includes the following: We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now, Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens like us. You all swore an oath to protect and defend this constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders…you must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.” The video and the response by Trump are important for multiple reasons: First, the message is relevant and timely because Trump is violating the Constitution by killing non-combatant civilians. He may attempt to use the military against US civilians. Members of the military are currently (likely) committing murder by killing non-combatant civilians suspected of drug smuggling. Everyone in the chain of command, from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Joint Chiefs Chair Dan Caine, to the enlisted member pushing the button on the Predator Drones, is violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice and is likely criminally liable for the deaths, which currently stand at 83 civilians. The number of people in the chain of command involved in the killing of civilians on alleged drug smuggling boats is likely less than a dozen. Their actions are a stain on the honor and professionalism of the military, however small the number. But a day may come when Trump and Hegseth order the US military into the streets of American cities. If that happens, it is important that a substantial portion of military members deployed to the streets refuse to raise arms against their fellow Americans if ordered to do so—an order that would be manifestly unlawful. If a reasonable percentage of the troops refuse to follow the order by laying down their arms—say 20%--that will lead to a breakdown in military discipline that will effectively dissolve the US military. The senior members of the military understand that risk and will refuse to deploy the military against American civilians. So, the message by the five members of Congress is vitally important. Indeed, their message should be amplified by every member of Congress, state and local officials, corporate leaders, faith leaders, university leaders, and concerned citizens. Second, the message and response are relevant because our president is calling for the execution of members of Congress for speech that merely states the controlling law. Trump suggested that the members of Congress deserved to be executed for stating an incontestable principle of military and civil law: “I was just following orders” is not a defense to criminal liability, a court-martial, or international criminal charges for killing civilians. Indeed, the Army’s Field Manual makes that point explicitly: IV. Defenses Not Available. 509. Superior Orders. “. . . nor does it constitute a defense in the trial of an accused individual, unless he did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the act ordered was unlawful. In response to an incontestable statement of the law by members of Congress, Trump posted (per the NYTimes article, above), SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH! HANG THEM, GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD! Even in a world in which we have been numbed to Trump’s unlawful and outrageous behavior, calling for the death of opposition leaders is beyond the pale of civilized nations. Try this thought experiment. Imagine tomorrow that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, calls for the execution by hanging of the leader of His Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition, Kemi Badenoch. What would we think about such an event in the UK? We would believe that it had tipped into anarchy and civil war. We would believe that Keir Starmer had either lost his mind or wanted to become the dictator of the U.K. Why, then, when Trump calls for the execution by hanging of members of the Democratic Party, does the Republican Party act like it is normal, even defensible, behavior? Why do pundits speculate that the statement may be a strategy to distract from the Epstein pedophile cover-up? Although the statement may draw attention away from the Epstein scandal, it is an affront to the Constitutional order in America. That’s the point. After the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk, Republicans demanded that everyone cease political discourse that could be interpreted in any way as condoning or encouraging violence. Trump just reposted, “HANG THEM.” There is no more direct call to violence than a call for execution. If an American citizen called for Trump to be subjected to the same punishment that he demands for the Democrats in the video, the Secret Service would rightly interrogate the person who made such a threat. Why, then, is Trump allowed to make such threats with impunity? We can drive ourselves to madness with such unanswerable questions, but that is not grounds for giving Trump a pass for his calls for violence. Indeed, we must remind people that our president calls for the execution of political opponents for speaking the truth. Trump violates the Constitution every day, including by using the military to kill non-combatant civilians. He should be impeached, convicted, and removed. Read on! Come to Washington, D.C., for the Remove the Regime Protest on November 22. A coalition of groups is holding a “Remove the Regime” protest in Washington, D.C. on November 22, 2025. Details here: Remove the Regime | November 22, Washington, DC. The promoters describe the event as follows: This is not a 50-state protest. On November 22, 2025, we will peacefully descend on the seat of power in Washington, DC to demand that this lawless administration come to an END. We will no longer tolerate inaction or delay from elected officials as Donald Trump commits actual treason. We are calling out their complicity in the sabotage of American democracy unless and until they honor their oath. We are demanding impeachment and removal, and we are demanding it NOW. The main rally is at the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday at Noon. A few “good news” items. The House has passed legislation to repeal that provision in the continuing resolution bill that allows Senators to recover damages from the federal government if their phone records were subpoenaed in the January 6 investigation. See NYTimes, House Votes to Kill Bill Allowing Senators to Sue Government. A federal grand jury is investigating two of Trump’s political attack dogs, Ed Martin and Bill Pulte, who have been the moving force behind the “mortgage fraud” indictments and investigations of Letitia James, Eric Swallwell, and Adam Schiff. See CNN, Justice Department is investigating handling of Adam Schiff mortgage fraud probe led by Ed Martin and Bill Pulte. The facts are still developing, but it appears that Martin and Pulte may have used an investigator who misrepresented himself as a DOJ attorney or FBI agent. They may have also improperly released grand jury materials. Per CNN, [A grand jury witness] told CNN on Thursday that . . . she believed she was going to provide grand jury testimony on Schiff and mortgage fraud, but that prosecutors “seemed more concerned” about looking into whether “there was conspiracy or collusion between me and Pulte or me and Ed Martin.” Prosecutors are also looking into whether grand jury materials gathered in the James case were illegally shared with people who were not authorized to review it, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. James has pleaded not guilty to fraud charges. A federal judge has found that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to D.C. is illegal and unconstitutional. The judge ordered that the deployment must end by December 11. See Chris Geidner, Law Dork, Federal judge rules Trump’s D.C. troop invasion is likely illegal, must end by Dec. 11. Per Geidner, The ruling continues the unbroken trend of trial court judges finding that the National Guard deployments set in motion by Trump over the past six months are likely illegal, unconstitutional, or both. The rulings include four [decisions by] federal judges in California, Oregon, Illinois, and now D.C. — and one state court judge in Tennessee. Why it will be difficult to withhold or destroy the “Epstein files.” Many readers of this newsletter have expressed skepticism that Attorney General Pam Bondi will release the Epstein files, or at least those portions damaging to Trump. Others believe that Bondi will supervise the destruction of harmful documents. Jay Kuo addressed these concerns in his Substack, The Status Kuo, Everyone Take a Victory Lap… and a Breath. Jay gives the most cogent explanation yet as to why it will be difficult to withhold or destroy damaging documents: On the question of Trump or the FBI tampering with the files (e.g., deleting instances of Trump’s name, removing video evidence, destroying images), I have significantly less worry about this than most. Why? The “Epstein Files” isn’t some centralized database. They comprise a host of electronic and physical evidence collected by the FBI, held under seal by the courts, used in civil proceedings, and held by third parties. The core investigative files, gathered by the FBI, are subject to strict chain-of-custody controls, meaning they have electronic timestamps, evidentiary IDs, digital authentications and audit trails. That’s very hard to mess with, at least not without someone noticing. The Epstein files are also not centrally located, but rather exist in multiple forms across multiple facilities, often sealed by court order. And there are working copies out there, as well as logs of who has what. Well said! While we should not underestimate the willingness of Trump’s minions to engage in criminality to protect him, neither should we underestimate the difficulty of destroying or limiting disclosure of documents that are in the hands of multiple parties and courts, and that have been viewed by thousands of agents and victims. Let’s not give up the fight. We still have reason to hope that we will see justice for the victims and accountability for the perpetrators. Concluding Thoughts I will host my Weekly Dose of Perspective livestream on Substack on Saturday at 9:00 a.m. Pacific / Noon Eastern. Instructions for joining the livestream can be found here. Reader Cynthia G. sent the following description of a community action in Palmyra, Wisconsin, to stop the local police chief from accepting funds to cooperate with ICE. Cynthia writes, I don’t know if you are aware, but this week, there was a huge win against ICE in the tiny village of Palmyra, Wisconsin, population about 1700. The Police Chief decided to enter into a Section 287 (g) Agreement with ICE because the department’s budget was short. Word got out, so the progressive community mobilized! Mari, the Indivisible leader in Palmyra, and the ACLU, along with other progressive groups, mobilized. They showed that 80% of the community opposed the plan, that any anticipated revenue would likely be lost to litigation, and even helped identify grants that could replace the expected 287(g) funds. That grassroots pressure worked—and it’s an inspiring model for how we can drive change in our rural communities to use positive action to win change. Community activists started with a “carrot” (a positive action, including helping to find a grant) and had a “stick” ready (press push and resistance actions), but the “carrot” worked. It not only offers the rest of Wisconsin a blueprint, it also shows that attacking the pillars of support and shifting allyship really works! See local press coverage, here: Urban Milwaukee, Murphy’s Law_ Why Palmyra Said No to ICE As we emerge from the dark period of seeming ICE impunity, creative actions like those in Palmyra show the path forward. But we should not underestimate the fact that the “carrot” was backed by a big “stick”—nearly unanimous community opposition and a public relations plan to pressure the Palmyra police department from cooperating with ICE. It cannot be said often enough: When enough people rise in resistance, we are unstoppable. The last few weeks have illustrated that point in high relief. We are on the right path! Let’s keep it up! Talk to you tomorrow!