Hegseth’s Franklin post to dismiss what is shaping up to look like a war crime is an excellent illustration of this administration’s focus on their fantasy of what strength looks like. In The Atlantic today, national security scholar Tom Nichols called out Hegseth, the secretary of defense of the United States of America, for acting like “a sneering, spoiled punk who has been caught doing wrong and is now daring the local fuzz to take him in and risk the anger of his rich dad—a role fulfilled by Donald Trump, in this case.”

BRAWLROOM

 

PARDONS BY THE PIG

 

 

  

MURDERER

 

New INC. Magazine column from Howard Tullman

 

You Carved the Turkey. Here’s What You Need to Slice Next

This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to simplify, shrink, and get rid of old rules and processes that no longer make sense in our new global economy.

EXPERT OPINION BY HOWARD TULLMAN, GENERAL MANAGING PARTNER, G2T3V AND CHICAGO HIGH TECH INVESTORS @HOWARDTULLMAN1

Dec 2, 2025

 

As we reflect on a bittersweet Thanksgiving for so many—and the very uncertain prospects for the coming year that may deliver even worse greed, sycophancy, and narcissism than the year we’ve just suffered through—we’ve still been afforded a moment with family and friends to take stock and determine what actions and commitments in our lives and businesses are things that we want to do and really worth doing.

It’s a great time to dump the many painful and useless efforts, activities and appendages we’ve accumulated like barnacles over the years, which no longer make sense, justify their cost and weight, or even offer us joy, comfort or solace. Life and the time we have are both too short to chase empty dreams and false hopes.

Without apologies or excuses, as we finally distance ourselves from the ravages of the pandemic and try to get past the everyday offenses, the sheer gluttony and grift, and the disgusting self-dealing we see in D.C., we’re at a point where we can simply and swiftly shed portions of our own past actions, behaviors, and “obligations” without paying any real social or emotional price.

Many of us who were lucky enough to survive the past year physically, mentally, and financially without our lives and businesses being damaged beyond repair definitely feel that we dodged a bullet, even as we’ve sadly watched our country be torn apart by a corrupt criminal. Now’s the time for every business owner to start the year-end review and begin the process of determining when and where changes need to be made to move away from our past.

It’s not a matter of restoring or even rebuilding the old; it’s a time to reinvent and reimagine the future of what can be. The trick for tomorrow will be to learn how to strip down and simplify our products and services and our lives as well to get more done with less. It couldn’t be more important to get back to basics and focus on solid execution and on delivering on the promises you’ve made to yourself, your family, your employees, and your customers. It’s a time to ask not just how and when, but why as well. If there’s no compelling reason to offer or provide something, maybe there’s no need at all, apart from sheer inertia, to keep doing certain things, other than that’s the way things have “always” been done.

The greatest single failing of most entrepreneurs is that they rarely know when to stop. Sometimes you just need to take a breath, take the win, and stop pushing and selling. For many established businesses, this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to simplify, shrink, and get rid of old rules, processes, and commitments that make little or no sense today in the new global economy. For example, the pandemic taught us that speed, access and resilience, not space and travel, are clearly the drivers of the digital world. Somehow, many of the excesses of the past that seemed so essential now feel unnecessary and wretchedly extreme.

As sad as it may be for some, we no longer respect tradition or even history; it’s all about innovation and novelty. At way too many companies, traditions are simply costly encumbrances and nothing more than excuses to avoid change. Over the years, just like ships, businesses develop barnacles and accumulate things that they ask their people to routinely do, even if no one remembers exactly why. In the age of Docusign, hunting down and paying a notary public to sign off on certain legal documents is just one of many stupid remnants of times gone by, which need to be put down and done away with. We’re finally seeing a digital solution to that particular ancient artifact. Illinois, under our new Secretary of State, Alexi Giannoulias, is leading that charge.

For startups, the post-pandemic “pause to reflect, refresh, and redo” is an even more critical chance to course-correct and fix things before they solidify, and you get stuck with them as you rush to return to business as usual. Now’s the time to get out from under commitments you made that no longer make any sense, promises that were premised on powers you’ve learned you no longer possess (and maybe never had), and plans to grow and scale which require radical reappraisal.

Anyone can make a mistake, but if you continue down the wrong path, you run the risk of internalizing and institutionalizing the bad behaviors and making it exponentially much harder to ditch them down the line. Where you came from and where you were headed is still relevant, but being a prisoner of the past serves no one and makes no sense. Don’t be afraid, wherever you’re at in your company, to ask why and occasionally to question and challenge even some of the “feel-good” things you see around you. And, of course, losing sight of reality and practicality aren’t limited to business choices and decisions. Overdoing just about anything is now an omnipresent part of our life and times, and too much apparently is never enough for some people.

 

NOT THE BRAIN

 

Not the Brain! Definitely Not the Brain! Stop Asking About the Fucking Brain!

Who among us hasn’t strolled into Monday morning and said, “Fuck it, I’ll take one preventative MRI, please”?

JoJoFromJerz Dec 2

Once upon a Monday morning so enchantingly perfect it looked hand-painted by angels with too much time on their hands, dawn unfurled across the sky in rosy ribbons. Sunlight spilled through my window in lazy, golden swaths, warming the room with a softness that felt almost orchestrated. Outside, a small choir of birds gathered upon the branches, trilling in delicate harmonies as if the universe had cast them for ambiance. Even the trees seemed to sway in gentle rhythm, their leaves shivering like they were waiting for the overture to begin.

I rose from my bed with the dreamy languor of a princess waking from a hundred-year nap, my long blonde hair cascading over my shoulders in decadent waves—waves so glossy and implausible they could only have been crafted by a unionized team of fairy stylists who do hair, light carpentry, and the occasional curse.

Down the hall pranced my children—Maribellaine Junipressa Rosewood-St.Clair & Gristleby Loamworth Thatchwick the Younger—their cheeks rosy, their steps buoyant, their entire existence radiating the kind of ethereal innocence you only ever read about in books with gold-foil lettering.

In the warm, honeyed glow of the kitchen, I prepared sous vide eggs from my small troop of hens—Ophelia Buttercup, Henrietta von Cluckington, Madam Beakstress, and Lady Eggatha Christie—and potato pancakes from my great-great-grandmother’s heirloom recipe once smuggled across an ocean in her most delicate, unspeakable place, because apparently modesty was negotiable but culinary preservation was sacred.

The whole scene shimmered with such ridiculous enchantment I half-expected a choir of bespectacled mice to break into song.

And on this most glorious of Mondays—this entirely ordinary Monday in every way and yet somehow shimmering with possibility—I felt within me a sudden burning desire. A longing. A need. A thirst.

Today, I thought… today I shall have an MRI.

A bold choice. A whimsical journey. A break in the routine of my usual morning—where I charge my electric car, cash my latest check from George Soros, and complete my daily abortion—into something grander, more mysterious, more spiritually aligned.

Because why not?

Who among us has not awoken on a crystalline Monday morning and thought: “I simply must get inside a giant magnetic tube that howls like it’s trying to exorcise my skeleton.”

Because this is how MRIs work, right? Like a loyalty card at the local nail salon—order five MRIs, get the sixth free. Just strolling into radiology like, “Hey babes, surprise me. Dealer’s choice.”

Because who doesn’t wake up and spontaneously decide to get magnetic imaging done on a random part of their body? No reason. No symptoms. No questions. Perfectly normal behavior—especially, apparently, for the president.

Because this—THIS—is the reality Donald Trump expects us to swallow: the idea that he “just had an MRI.” Just—BOOP—an MRI. No idea why. No idea what part of his body was involved. Just your everyday casual jaunt into a machine that screams like a banshee trying to claw its way out through steel walls.

On Sunday, he said: “I have no idea. It was just an MRI.”

He followed it with: “What part of the body? It wasn’t the brain because I took a cognitive test and I aced it.”

Lil buddy, the “cognitive test” you keep bragging about is a dementia exam, not the SAT for Mensa. It’s the Montreal Cognitive Assessment—a quiz used to determine whether someone is ready for assisted living or merely dehydrated. Passing it is not an achievement; it’s the neurological equivalent of, “Congratulations, you didn’t eat glue today.” You don’t ace that test. You just… complete it.

Reporter: “Can you tell us what they were looking at?”

Trump: “For what? Releasing?”

Reporter: “No, what part of the body was the MRI looking at?”

Trump: “I have no idea.”

Not a clue. Not a flicker. Not even the faintest suspicion of which appendage entered the million-dollar magnetic tube.

And weeks ago, before this fresh chaos, Karoline Leavitt had already stepped to the podium insisting that Trump received only “advanced imaging” and remains in “exceptional physical health,” which is certainly one interpretation of “a man who looks like he’s being operated by remote control through a series of frayed extension cords.” And just today, Karoline Leavitt upgraded the fairy tale, announcing that the president had a “preventative MRI”—as if MRIs are seasonal offerings, right next to Pumpkin Spice colonics and Cranberry Bliss labiaplasty.

A preventative MRI, because they think we’re fucking stupid.

But let’s revisit the brain. The idea that anyone would dismiss the possibility of a brain MRI in his case is the funniest part of this entire fairy-tale-turned-medical-horror-show.

This is a man whose cranial landscape is less “organ of cognition” and more intellectual skid row where common sense turned tricks for loose change. Inside that gilded skull is the cognitive gangbang of confusion, ego, lies, and erectile insecurity grinding under a flickering neon sign. His frontal lobe functions like a cerebral glory hole where stray thoughts wander in and never emerge, while the cortical motherboard sizzles like a cursed relic stolen from a museum basement. The entire operation is run out of an internal call center staffed by three disgruntled possums on a smoke break, misrouting calls and occasionally fighting over an old ham wrapper. And at the center of it all is the cranial snuff film where synapses go to get waterboarded by confusion.

But sure. Not the brain. Anything but the brain.

And yet—somehow—we are supposed to accept this. Nod politely like enchanted villagers in a cursed kingdom and pretend it’s perfectly fine that the president of the United States cannot recall what body part doctors shoved into a machine that sounds like a demon trying to escape a steel coffin.

We deserve to know. We deserve transparency.

Because here’s what we can see with our own eyes—no MRI required: his posture has given up completely, collapsing like a lawn chair at an all-inclusive resort during “Free Margarita Hour,” and he forgets names and places like his brain outsourced memory to interns who stopped showing up. He falls asleep mid-question like his brain hits the fainting couch and demands smelling salts, lurching and slurring like a shopping cart with a busted wheel on black ice.

So forgive me for assuming the MRI might reveal something less “perfect” and more “haunted electrical panel.”

Maybe the technician saw neurons doing coke off a broken mirror, screaming “YOLO” while trying to do parkour across his cerebellum. Maybe the synapses were firing like a malfunctioning vibrator plugged into a Soviet-era power grid. Maybe the frontal lobe looked less like a brain structure and more like the backstage area at a Furry convention during a blackout. Maybe the whole scan resembled a Pay-Per-View broadcast of his cognitive estate sale, proudly sponsored by the boner pill he swears he’s “never even seen in person.”

At this point, if he told us he’d sprouted wings and flown home to Florida wedged between two ibises, Karoline Leavitt would step up to the podium and say, “Yes, that aligns with what we’ve observed from the president’s impressive and extremely normal musculature.”

Meanwhile—meanwhile—these exact same people have spent the past year insisting that Joe Biden signing documents with an autopen constitutes a constitutional crisis. That anything he signed is “illegitimate”. That mechanized writing assistance is proof he’s not in control of his faculties.

The argument, if you recall, was: “He didn’t know what he was signing.”

Okay. Let’s play that game.

Joe Biden used an autopen (they ALL do).

Donald Trump doesn’t know what part of his body was shoved into a physics tantrum disguised as medical equipment.

If we’re doing equivalencies, only one of these men misplaced his own anatomy.

And until Donnie tells us the truth, I’m going to assume the worst. Because if the president can’t remember what happened to his own body in a medical procedure, the country damn sure deserves to know why. And if he’s wandering into MRI machines like they’re vending kiosks at an airport, then what else is he forgetting? Who else is running the country? And how much longer are we supposed to pretend that the emperor isn’t just naked but also lost, confused, and possibly rebooting mid-sentence like a taxidermied ferret in a future serial killer’s third-grade diorama realizing—far too late—that it died with unfinished business.

Tell us the truth, or don’t complain when we diagnose the whole situation as “fucked” with a prognosis of “terminally, irrevocably fucked.”

There’s a difference between a mystery and a cover-up, and this whole operation left “mystery” slumped in a mud-soaked ditch like a deflated MAGA balloon abandoned behind an RV campground hosting a swinger swap meet with one hot tub, zero chlorine, and a dream that should’ve been euthanized at sunrise.

Because if he can’t even remember what the hell happened to him, he sure as shit shouldn’t be trusted with what happens to us.

 

Department of War Crimes

Rebecca Crosby and Noel Sims Dec 2

U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth stands before the game between the Detroit Lions and the Washington Commanders on November 9, 2025, in Landover, Maryland. (Photo by Lauren Leigh Bacho/Getty Images)

Since September 2, the Department of Defense (DOD) has used drones to kill more than 80 people traveling by boat in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. The government claims strikes targeted “terrorists” trafficking drugs into the United States.

According to a New York Times report, the military does not know the names of all the people it has killed. Instead, the military carries out a strike on a boat if it “knows that someone on the boats has a connection to a drug cartel, and it has some level of confidence that drugs are on the vessels.” No evidence has been presented to the public and Colombia’s government says that at least one of the strikes killed an innocent fisherman.

Even if every person killed by the drone strikes was in fact a drug trafficker, it is unclear what authority the DOD has to kill them. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has argued that cartels are trafficking drugs to finance a “non-international armed conflict” against the U.S., giving the executive branch the authority under Article II of the Constitution to kill the drug traffickers without Congress signing off on a declaration of war. Lawmakers and legal experts have raised doubts that smuggling drugs into the U.S. constitutes initiating an “armed conflict.”

Recently, new information has surfaced with the strongest evidence yet that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth committed a war crime in ordering at least one of the strikes.

Last week, the Washington Post reported that Hegseth gave a verbal order to leave no survivors in the first strike of the DOD’s campaign against drug smuggling boats, which took place in the Caribbean on September 2. Several minutes after striking the boat for the first time, the Special Operations commander overseeing the attack ordered a second strike to kill two men hanging on to the burning remains of the boat in order to comply with Hegseth’s order, according to the Post.

That narrative describes a likely violation of the Geneva Conventions, which states, “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘hors de combat’ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,” with specific protections against “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds.”

Two people, whose exact identities and potential roles in drug trafficking are unknown, clinging to wreckage in the middle of the ocean would certainly be ‘hors de combat’ — individuals who cannot fight back — which would make killing them a war crime. This would also be a violation of the 1996 War Crimes Act, which incorporates the Geneva Conventions into U.S. law.

Both Democrats and Republicans have raised serious concerns about Hegseth’s order in the wake of the Washington Post report. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said on CBS, “This rises to the level of a war crime if it’s true.” Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) said, “Obviously if that occurred, that would be very serious, and I agree that that would be an illegal act.” The House and Senate armed services committees have announced that they are looking into the order.

On Monday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the second strike during the September 2 operation, saying everything was within the military’s legal authority. Leavitt provided no details to substantiate this claim.

That Hegseth would give such an order that could potentially constitute a war crime should come as no surprise. Hegseth has a long history of expressing contempt for the Geneva Conventions and the legal rules of engagement.

Hegseth suggested abiding by international law was like “fighting with one hand behind our back”

In his 2024 book The War on Warriors, Hegseth questioned whether the U.S. military should abide by the Geneva Conventions. Hegseth argued that following the Geneva Conventions was like “fighting with one hand behind our back.”

Should we follow the Geneva Conventions? What if we treated the enemy the way they treated us? Would that not be an incentive for the other side to reconsider their barbarism? Hey, Al Qaeda: If you surrender, we might spare your life. If you do not, we will rip your arms off and feed them to hogs.

Makes me wonder, in 2024—if you want to win—how can anyone write universal rules about killing other people in open conflict? Especially against enemies who fight like savages, disregarding human life in every single instance. Maybe, instead, we are just fighting with one hand behind our back—and the enemy knows it.

Hegseth went on to suggest that the U.S. military should just follow “our own rules” and disregard “international tribunals:”

If our warriors are forced to follow rules arbitrarily and asked to sacrifice more lives so that international tribunals feel better about themselves, aren’t we just better off winning our wars according to our own rules?! Who cares what other countries think. The question we have to ask ourselves is, if we are forced to fight, are we going to fight to win? Or will we fight to make leftists feel good—which means not wining [sic] and fighting forever.

During confirmation hearing, Hegseth avoided questions about following Geneva Conventions

During Hegseth’s confirmation hearing, Senator Angus King (I-ME) asked Hegseth about whether he believed in abiding by the Geneva Conventions. Hegseth avoided directly answering.

Senator, as I’ve… stated multiple times, the Geneva Conventions are what we base ours… What an America first national security policy is not going to do is hand its prerogatives over to international bodies that make decisions about how our men and women make decisions on the battlefield. America first understands we send Americans for a clear mission and a clear objective, we equip them properly for that objective—and we give them everything they need and then we stand behind them with the rules of engagement that allow them to fight decisively to defeat America’s enemies which is why we sit quietly and peacefully in this conference room.

“We follow rules, but we don’t need burdensome rules of engagement that make it impossible for us to win these wars,” Hegseth said.

Hegseth also told Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) during his confirmation hearing that he had “thought very deeply about the balance between legality and lethality, ensuring that the men and women on the frontlines have the opportunity to destroy with and close the enemy, and that lawyers aren’t the ones getting in the way,” ABC News reported.

Hegseth told military leaders to set aside “stupid rules of engagement”

In a September speech, Hegseth told a group of senior military leaders to ignore “stupid rules of engagement,” which he called “overbearing.” Rules of engagement are legal guidelines for the use of force.

We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy. We also don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement, just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for warfighters.

Hegseth called for “maximum lethality”

In September, Trump signed an executive order changing the name of the DOD to the Department of War. At the signing, Hegseth said that the department would focus on “maximum lethality, not tepid legality.”

This name change is not just about renaming. It’s about restoring. Words matter. It’s restoring as you’ve guided us to, Mr. President, restoring the warrior ethos, restoring victory and clarity as an end state, restoring intentionality to the use of force… We’re going to go on offense, not just on defense. Maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically correct. We’re going to raise up warriors, not just defenders.

Hegseth lobbied Trump to pardon men accused of war crimes

Hegseth lobbied Trump in his first term to pardon men who had either been convicted or were facing charges “related to alleged war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Trump eventually pardoned both Army Lieutenant Clint Lorance and Army Major Mathew Golsteyn, and “reversed a demotion” of Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher.

“These are men who went into the most dangerous places on earth with a job to defend us and made tough calls on a moment’s notice,” Hegseth said in May 2019. Hegseth argued that they were “not war criminals, they’re warriors.”

In June 2024, Hegseth defended his position on a podcast, CNN reported.

Donald Trump pardoned a bunch of guys I advocated for in his last couple years in office. They killed the right guys in the wrong way, according to somebody. I’m done with that. We need to fight total war against our enemies when we do. And yeah, you don’t kill civilians on purpose, but you kill bad guys. All of ’em, you stack bodies, and when it’s over, then you let the dust settle and you figure out who’s ahead.

In a November 2024 podcast interview, Hegseth defended ignoring rules of engagement. Hegseth spoke about being briefed about rules of engagement by a military lawyer in Baghdad in 2005, the Associated Press reported. Hegseth said that after the briefing he told his platoon, “Guys we’re not doing that.”

Hegseth argued that “the New York Times, and the left, and Democrats… all they do is take one incident and yell ‘war criminal.’”

No, It's Not Sedition, It's the Law.

 

No, It's Not Sedition, It's the Law.

Military law demands refusal of unlawful orders.

Asha Rangappa Dec 2

 

 

“The threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here right at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”

These were the reminders included in a video released last week by Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, along with five other Democratic House members who also previously served in the military. Almost immediately after the video went out, President Trump issued statements on Truth Social characterizing the video first as “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL” that should result in their arrest, then saying they should be “locked up” in a second post, and finally in a third post claiming that their conduct was “punishable by DEATH.” (Unhinged much?)

 

Trump’s minions wasted no time getting in line. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth threatened Senator Kelly, a retired U.S. Navy combat pilot, with a court-martial based on “serious allegations of misconduct” for his participation in the video. FBI Director Kash Patel has apparently ordered an investigation into the remaining members of Congress, for…well, it’s not clear what for. In short, just when you thought things could not possibly get stupider, they did.

 

There is sooooo much to unpack here, so first things first: the law. Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it a violation to fail to obey – wait for it – lawful orders. Which of course means that servicemembers are not obligated to follow unlawful orders, which is any order that violates the Constitution, U.S. law, international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict, or LOAC), or the Geneva Conventions. Guess which branch of government is charged under the Constitution with promulgating rules and regulations for the armed forces? That’s right, Congress, under Article I, Section 8. So the allegedly “seditious” behavior of these legislators consisted of articulating a law passed pursuant to their constitutional prerogatives, laws that members of the military swear to uphold when they take the oath to serve

Now let’s turn to sedition. The U.S. criminal code doesn’t have a crime of sedition per se, but rather for seditious conspiracy, which is a violation when “two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.” You can re-read that a few times, and I think you’d be hard-pressed to find that making a video telling military servicemembers to follow the law and uphold the Constitution fits that definition. (Conduct that involves storming the capital, threatening to hang the Vice President, and attempting to prevent a peaceful transfer of power would, on the other hand, fit the definition perfectly.)

With that all settled, let’s look at what could actually happen to these lawmakers. You might be surprised to learn that the military does have jurisdiction over retired members of the military: Article 2(a)(4) of the UCMJ explicitly confers jurisdiction over “retired servicemembers who are entitled to pay,” so they can be court-martialed without being recalled into active duty first. (Servicemembers are entitled to pay, meaning a military pension, after 20 years – servicemembers who are separated from the military but not eligible for a pension are not considered “retired.”) The military can also court-martial retired servicemembers for conduct that occurs after they leave service. Senator Kelly is the only one of the six who is retired, not separated, which explains why Hegseth has singled him out, and in theory he could be court-martialed.

 

But hauling someone into a military court is not that easy. Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (ret.) tells me that any court-martial is preceded first by a formal inquiry. Gen. Hertling served as a “general officer court-martial convening authority,” or GCMCA in military-speak, and said that courts-martial are always preceded by an investigation to determine whether there is any basis for wrongdoing and the facts surrounding the case before it is put to trial. “It appears there’s no evidence of wrongdoing by those who made the tape,” Gen. Hertling told me, ”so no crimes are apparent. Additionally, if any GCMCA were pressured to conduct a trial by a senior civilian or military official, like the Secretary of Defense or Chief of Naval Operations, that would create something called ‘undue command influence,’ that would further taint any investigation or court procedure.” So it’s unlikely that Senator Kelly is in any real danger of being court-martialed.

What about the FBI investigation into the other members of Congress? Well, the Attorney General Guidelines, which govern FBI investigations, explicitly prohibit investigations “solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment or the lawful exercise of other rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” So at least one huge red flag here is that it appears that the AG Guidelines have been thrown out the window. Beyond that, it’s not clear where any so-called investigation could go. FBI cases need to have their basis in some kind of “predication” – an allegation or facts suggesting a violation of federal law or a national security threat. Here, there are none.

So what’s the endgame here? I think an area of psychological research called social identity theory provides an answer. Social identity theory is based on the idea that how we view information is based on our perceived identity when we receive it. We all have numerous, simultaneous identities: I am, for instance, a woman, Indian, a lawyer, a professor, and a child of immigrants. Depending on which of these “hats” is most salient to me at a given point in time, I will process and react to the same stimuli differently. For example, though federal judges are appointed by presidents with political agendas, actually sitting on a bench and wearing a robe can prime them to see a case through an objective lens – we’ve seen this manifest repeatedly with Trump-appointed judges in the last few months. I think the reason that the video is so threatening to this administration is that the lawmakers aren’t speaking to the military as legislators, but rather invoking their shared identity as a servicemembers – and in doing so, reorienting their loyalty to higher principles, and their oath to the Constitution, not a person. Ruh-roh! You can see how that could be a problem for Trump.

 

The ultimate goal of the threats against Senator Kelly and other members of Congress isn’t to actually create legal consequences – that just isn’t going to happen – but to intimidate others, particularly other retired and separated servicemembers, from speaking out. That’s because the biggest threat to a wannabe-authoritarian regime isn’t necessarily dissent from the opposition, but from people who are trusted – and former members of the military are exactly that, to those who continue to serve. The administration clearly wants to nip that threat in the bud. But my money is on the military: its bonds of loyalty to the Constitution, and to one another, are far stronger than Trump realizes.