Hey, folks, it is Friday, November twenty first, and we have several members of Congress who have had to have their security stepped up. Even their families are being checked on, all because of a threat that's come their way. The threat came from President Trump, and with that, Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Robes. I took some liberties in the introduction before the most part. What I said is exactly what people are saying has taking place.
The President of the United States called for the death of certain members of Congress.
Yes, there's no other way to say it. He suggested that certain members of Congress be tried and potentially executed. Even there was a suggestion a retweeting of being hanged for sedition because of a video that six lawmakers put out on social media.
Yeah. The President's also he didn't like to He didn't like so he reacts, which he often does. Want to say here off the top, I don't want to wait until we get to the bottom of this of this episode, but when you're talking about something in this series. This went on for the most part of the day yesterday. There's back and forth in DC. The President's spokesperson did come out later was asked directly, and she said no,
that was the answer. She didn't go farther and explain when she was asked, does the president want any members of Congress? Actually killed no, and then she went on to something else. So what's happened now is that he amplified this thing with his messages. How many people are going to pay attention? That wasn't a forceful response, it was just no.
There was no explanation, there was no impact. She turned the tables, as she often does. We're talking about Carolyn Levitt, the White House Press secretary, back towards the media that you weren't getting what actually the story is, and it's about this video. It's not about what the president said.
But what the president said was extraordinary and deeply concerning, and in this era of the President and Republicans saying that words matter, that words incite violence, and they point to Charlie Kirk's asassination as example or exhibit a, what in the hell is the president doing?
So we'll tell you exactly what he said. We've said this before. He was kind of on one last night, or at least when he was starting to put these together. If you ever go to his truth Social page. You can tell kind of what was going on with him for the day. Some of them are just sometimes it's so many in a row that it's hard to keep up with, and it's hard to understand how he has
this much time to post all of these things. But this was kind of a you tried to piece together, kind of an unhinged rapid fire messages that, frankly, some of them wrote, He's used to explaining a lot in his messages. It seemed like some of these he was just firing off right quick.
Yes, and we can start with some of what he wrote on True Social. The president wrote, it's called seditious behavior at the highest level.
That was in all caps.
Each one of these traders to our country should be arrested and put on trial. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. We won't have a country anymore. An example must be set.
Their words he's talking about there. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. He didn't like that these members of Congress, all Democrats. I think all of them had military backgrounds.
They all had military service, but they came.
Out and put this video together, put out on social media, essentially bringing attention to something and also, I would say urging members of the military and the intelligence community, you have the right, you do not have to follow unlawful orders. That's the message they were getting out, and that's what upset the president.
Correct, And so the President went on to say this is really bad and dangerous to our country. Their words again, cannot be allowed to stand. Seditious behavior from traders three exclamation points, lock them up, question mark, question mark, question mark got me.
He seemed like he was fishing for it, like, give me your response, what do you think?
Yeah?
Does anyone else agree that this should happen? And then in a third post, this is among the scariest seditious behavior punishable by death, and he has death in all caps with an exclamation point. And then he reposted some posts that other truth social users were putting out there after his initial string of posts, including one that said hang them George Washington, would.
We keep talking about temperature going up and down? I don't know how you defend I don't know how you defend this and say it's not contributing to what is an awful time of political discourse in this country that has led to death, that has led to violence. He didn't just say investigate them. He could have said that we need to look into this language, or this is flat out rove. This is terrifying because someone sees this as marching orders. Someone sees this as well, he's given
me permission. Will someone also see this and go, well, my guys in the White House I do this for him, like he said, maybe he'll pardon me, Like what is the message here? Is clear? Like it's almost it feels like marching orders. And look they came back and they said, no, he doesn't actually want them, but man words, you cannot take this back and these get amplified. Nobody's amplifying her answer, no, because that's all she said.
She said, so yes, she's just said Carolyn love it.
And I actually wanted to read what she went on to say afterwards, because she did not bring the temperature down period with her no. And then she went on to say, many in this room want to talk about the president's response, but not what brought the president to
responding in this way. You have sitting members of the United States Congress who conspired together to orchestrate a bit you a message to members of the United States military, to active duty service members, to members of national security apparatus, encouraging them to defy the president's lawful orders. That is not true. If you read the video, they specifically say to defy illegal orders.
Yes, that's all they're talking about, obviously, clearly, plainly, it's exactly what they're talking about here. And it's difficult to she justified him calling for the death possibly of members of Congress. It's justified because what you should be talking about is that video that caused him to react this way. If it's really difficult in you, look, we do not do politics here. We do not go back and forth with political with issues and take a stance. We don't
do that. But at some point we all have to look at the same thing and agree that the President of the United States should not be calling for the death of members of Congress. If you want to say, well, he didn't really mean it, you can if you want to, fine, But you still cannot argue that this is not helpful and where.
We are and we are not ad living or inferring from or assuming what he meant.
By no, we are reading exactly what he said.
And I do appreciate, Babe, that you pointed out this is not about politics. This is not about Republicans and Democrats and where we stand politically. This is about what's right and what's wrong, and how can anyone defend that language.
And I will say this again.
Having Carolyn Levitt put out in that press briefing room misinformation that these lawmakers were calling for members of the US military to defy the president's lawful orders is just a boldfaced lie.
Their argument, I guess she would say, is that they believe every order the president has given is lawful. I think that is what they would say. Now, plenty of judges at this point courts have said no, that is not lawful. Deployment of National Guard in this city on that street up. Yes, he's lost some of these, but in his mind it's lawful. I'm just saying in a technical case, she's probably believed everywhere. Came out of her mouth. That's true.
I believe she believed what she was saying, she went on to say. Levitt went on to say that the video perhaps is punishable by law, so she agreed with the President on that, and then she added, I'm not a lawyer. I'll leave that to the Department of Justice and the Department of War to decide.
Okay, I'm just discouraged. I'm really really well. Just the temperature this is now.
Now.
We talked about this, go back to January sixth, even right well, people were arguing, is was he inciting an insurrection in that moment in that speech, And people will tell you yes, it sounds like he was giving marching orders to go up there and fight like hell and all these things. So how how can anyone here or listen a follower, a fringe follower, someone who's not quite right? This is my god. The president just said their words
can't be allowed to stand. He didn't just say trial, he didn't say investigation.
Punishable by death. I just reposted someone suggesting that they should be hanged. That is not That is not something to be taken lightly. It's not in ingest. It's not funny, it's not it's not cute, koy. This is serious. And six democratic lawmakers again who have military service, who served our country, are now fearing for their life and their famili's safety.
There are a lot of times and you know what, even the piggy thing, even when that happened, he called a reporter a piggy. It's whatever degree he has a different standard that we hold him to. And we heard that even in one day, Yeah Trump and went about our business. It's rare for him to shock the hell
out of you. This one's I'm this is this is something else, just given the times we are, and good Lord Charlie Kirk, after we saw this man gunned down over words, over politics, over somebody saying his words can't be allowed to stand. He can't continue to eat you shut somebody up.
Teachers are fired, people are losing their jobs because they suggested something or they made light of a death. And yet the president says what he says, and Carolyn Levitt tells us that we're focused on the wrong thing.
Well, aren't there people out there, including maybe many of his supporters, who will see or who will take this and go yeah, I agree, who are following his direction and following his policies. They're following his mindset, They're following the way he sees things. I'm trying, I'm really really trying to be on that side, to look at it from that angle and go, wow, these members of Congress did something so egregious that they should be looked into
as treasonous as seditious. It does it right. I'm trying to see the other side and to where you would use this type of language, to where you would make this type of suggestion over what they said. I just can't get there.
I would like to read what they said because I have it here. So, folks who are listening, if you haven't watched the video, certainly you should. It's on Senator Alissa Slotkin's social media pages that the whole video is up there, and certainly it's been running on all the news shows today. But this is what the lawmaker said. We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk.
The 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
of our constitution. Now, these lawmakers did not call for any opposition to a specific policy or to a specific order, but They're just saying, you actually have a duty as a member of the US military to uphold the constitution and to reject any illegal order.
They say they made this.
Video because they've been hearing from rank and file members, from their contacts that people are concerned about being forced to do something that they believe is illegal.
They stated facts, and they stated law, and they stated do they not as this is understood, all of us have some kind of knowledge of that tangentially or whatever that that exists, that you're not permitted and you're okay to refuse somebody just tells you, hey, go in there and attack that Walmart. For me, you're not going to follow that order because it's illegal, right, It's very simple stuff. How does that rise to the level of you, all the traders who need to die?
You got me?
I'm trying, I'm trying to find I'm always trying to look at both sides and not just go after and criticize. But this is just dangerous stuff. How many of these episodes have we done talking about violence, talking about Charlie Kirk, talking about everything that came after that rose. Oh we could what the lawmakers were killed up in? Was it Michigan. Yes, this year Pennsylvania governor house set on fire.
Yes, this is Nancy Pelosi's husband attacked. I mean, you can keep going on and on.
It's been happening in greater numbers over the years, and this is the exact opposite of what we need in this country of bringing.
The temperature down with folks. We don't just take our word for it. We certainly got us thinking. A lot of people are talking about treason versus sedition, versus insurrection. Those have been thrown around. We'll get some clarity on that. We do have the law here in front of us. Also some famous cases. Maybe you know about the cases of treason, but maybe not the ones having to do with seditions. Stay with us here, we're right back, all right. We continue now on this episode of Amy and TJ
talking about sedition. The president's tweets in which he said that certain members of Congress who did something he didn't like should possibly be charged with sedition, which is punishable by death. One of my you know, one of my favorite favorite favorite movies, Michael Douglas, American President. You remember that movie. Yes, there's a great scene with a net Benning when he first meets her in the White House. She was showing off talking about him in some meeting.
He sneaks in, They turn around, they see him there, and he, with a great smile, says, let's take him out back and shoot him. And he gets this laugh out of it because it was just this cool moment and it scared everybody in the room. The President's here, we're talking about him, and and he made this joke. And I always love that scene in that line because it was delivered perfectly, and it gave you an idea of I guess the energy in the room and why
something like that sounds so ridiculous. That obviously is.
Jogi right coming from the President of the United States. Clearly he would never call for the death of someone.
Take him out back and shoot is what he said in front of them. And here we are. That was funny, and it's so ridiculous that it you'd have to laugh.
You knew it was a joke. Yes, immediately today not so much.
We have to take everything he says. Seriously.
Wow, it's frightening. So we went and looked up what sedition actually is, and so the US Code defines sedition as this a crime involving two or more people in the United States for any of the following purposes. To conspire to overthrow or destroy by force, the government of the United States, or to wage war against it, To oppose by force the authority of the United States Government, to prevent, hinder, or delay by force, the execution of
any law of the United States. Or to take, sees or possessed by force any property of the United States.
This is the way it has to This involves conspiracy, right.
At least two people, two or more people in the United States.
Okay, this is why it jumped out to me when you were talking about this early. I'm looking back at Carolyn Levitt's she used some language that seemed to try to set up there. It is you have sitting members of the United States Congress who conspired together to orchestrate like it was specific language.
But this is the caveat here that really got me to get a conviction for seditious conspiracy. The government has to prove that the defendants conspired to use force. Simply advocating for the use of force is not the same thing.
By that definition. This is a non sense.
It's a moot point, yes.
But has impact who knows what kind. Yes, they're not going to trial, They're not going to get hauled into court over this.
No. Yes. And the interesting thing is, if you are just a US citizen and you're convicted of sedition, you can face up to twenty years in prison. But if you are a member of the military, if you are a military or you can face the death penalty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And these members of Congress were members of the military, So by that connection you would say it's possible that they could get a death sentence if they were to be convicted of sedition.
And we tried to find there are not a lot of cases historically having to do with sedition. We thought that might be a bunch of famous cases. It's actually really not, not names you would know, but there was what was the best two years, I guess this was pretty high profile members of the Oath keeper Low. Yes.
Yes, yes, those who were charged January sixth, Yes, there were some sedition charges in a few of those cases.
But this is really really rare.
I went and looked the AP says that in the history of the United States, only twelve people have been convicted either through treeson or s edition, and we're talking Aaron Burr, we're talking Tokyo Rose, We're talking very different cases.
Completely, it was Benedict Arnold. We go back to that. He wasn't. Actually we consider him a traitor, but he was never formally.
He's not on this list.
The point is you have to go back a ways.
Correct.
This isn't used a lot.
Correct, and so this is just I mean, I would say the only good thing that has come out of the story is that maybe we as Americans are learning more about our laws more.
I'm serious.
I looked up and learned things I did not know that I wouldn't have looked out or looked at either way.
And also looking at the Uniformed Code of Military.
Justice, which is basically what the military is allowed to do when it comes to lawful orders. And I actually looked at all of this too, and it was really interesting. So basically, any person subject to this chapter who willing willfully disobeys a lawful command shall be punished, Okay, so that could be punished by death. So if you disobey a lawful command, that could be punished by death, just by the way, and.
Then if the offense is committed.
You end up outside of a war time, you can be court martialed and again serious significant punishments.
But I thought this was interesting.
An order is considered lawful, and this is where I think the question is between what the lawmakers are saying and what the president is saying. A military order is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders, or for some other reason beyond the authority of the official issuing. So it is a little confusing.
Well, who gets to say whether or not this order is lawful or not? Especially a lot of this stuff is tied up in a court, correct, So is it an illegal order to tell me to go patrol this street because a judge just said this is an illegal deployment.
It is a gray area and very confusing, especially in these times when President Trump is ordering, yes, members of the military to go in to cities and then you have judges saying you're not allowed to go into said cities. So where whose orders are the lawful ones? It is confusing. It's an interesting conversation. It just doesn't need to be fueled with all this horrific rhetoric.
That's a good point, we could still be having the same debate without this part being in it. But folk, we just if you listen to us a little bit at all and our pat you know, we always are on trying to just bring the rhetoric down and words matter and careful of what you say. So we encourage you all to being careful in what you're saying today and just remember always that words matter. And please be a part of bringing the temperature down in this country
if you can. If that's even with a conversation on the subway, at the grocery store, just please, we gotta be better.
Or around the Thanksgiving Thanksgiving dinner this coming week.
There's a lot to talk about here. Thank you for listening, everybody. We always appreciate you. I may be Robock alongside TJ. Holmes. We will talk to you soon.