Legal & Political Implications - Jimmy Lai was convicted of sedition in Hong Kong under the National Security Law [1] - He is now the most prominent public figure convicted under the National Security Law [1] Individual Profile - Alice Y. Su explains the conviction of Jimmy Lai [1]

RT Hunter Ash (@ArtemisConsort)Two national guardsmen were killed.Leftists seem to believe that they are a fourth branch of government, that their desired policies not being implemented constitutes a breach of the social contract that justifies any response. Including murder.People like Jane will of course say that they disavow political violence. But in the same breath, they treat it as an inevitable and predictable consequence of them not getting their way.You lost. You lost the Presidency, the House, and ...

FBI and Justice Department officials are working to arrange interviews with six Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a video advising service members not to follow illegal orders. The video enraged President Trump, who posted on social media last Friday that the lawmakers, all of whom have previously served in the military or US intelligence, should be arrested. He also accused them of sedicious behavior punishable by death.The four members of the house who appeared in the video, Jason Crowe, Chris Duzio, M ...

Political Violence & Security Concerns - Members of Congress are facing new threats of political violence after former President Trump's posts [1] - Capitol Police increased security for lawmakers, including one who received a bomb threat [1] - One congresswoman reported 24/7 security and law enforcement presence at her home [2] Constitutional & Legal Disputes - Accusations of pitting the military against American citizens were made against the administration [4] - White House press secretary accused lawmakers of encouraging chaos and violence by urging the military to defy the chain of command [4] - Lawmakers assert they are reminding people of constitutional and legal requirements, not encouraging disobedience of lawful orders [5] - Concern raised about Secretary of Defense's refusal to commit to abiding by Supreme Court decisions [8] - A president is testing the boundaries of the law each and every day [10] Domestic Issues & Healthcare Crisis - Over 70% of people are in an impossible situation of getting the care they need when they need it, and where they need it [12][13] - Reversing cuts to healthcare is suggested to tackle drug overdose deaths [16] Foreign Policy & Military Action - Concern about the US potentially going to war with Venezuela without congressional approval [14] - The US shouldn't be dragged unilaterally into a war with Venezuela [15]

Democratic Congresswoman from Pennsylvania, Chrissy Hulahan. Congresswoman Chrissy Hulahan serves on the Armed Services Committee. Uh, Congresswoman, thank you for being with us this morning. >> Thank you for having me.>> Uh, it is not, you are a public person. Uh, threats happen. Uh, but this is not, it is not fair to accept that in America, you as an elected member of Congress should face death threats that may be triggered by something the president of the United States has said.>> Sure. I mean, it's not ...

Joining us now, MS Now's Ellie Vatitali on Capitol Hill. MS Now's van Hillyard, former Republican Congressman of Pennsylvania, Charlie Dent, Kristen Rouse, a US Army veteran and founder of the New York City Veterans Alliance, and Michael Hardaway, former communications director and spokesman for Congressman Hakee Jeff. Welcome to all of you.Uh Kristen, is it fair to say that some of these military members who have obviously expressed their concern uh to some members of Congress are kind of in between a rock ...

And we are now 347 days away from the midterms. And today, Donald Trump appeared to accuse a group of congressional Democrats of sedition and saying that sedition was punishable by death. It was part of a flurry of social media posts, including one repost of another user calling for those Democrats to be hanged.So, what did this group of Democrats do to provoke such anger. Well, they released a video encouraging members of the military and intelligence community not to follow any illegal orders. See for you ...

Political Commentary & Security Concerns - Former President Trump called for the trial and execution of six Democratic members of Congress due to a video they made addressing the armed forces and intelligence community [1][2] - The video in question advised military members to refuse illegal orders, citing their oath to the Constitution [1][4] - Senator Lissa Slotkin, one of the Democrats targeted, reported a surge in threats and the implementation of 24/7 security following Trump's statements [5][6] - Slotkin believes Trump is using fear to distract from issues like the Epstein files and to intimidate critics [7][19] Legal & Ethical Considerations - The video was created in response to concerns from military and intelligence personnel about potentially illegal orders [9][10] - The video cited the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the principle established in Nuremberg that soldiers are not obligated to follow illegal orders [4][11] - Slotkin referenced an instance where Trump allegedly suggested shooting at protesters' legs, which she considers an example of an illegal order [12][13] Department of Justice & Political Influence - There are concerns that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is acting on President Trump's behalf, potentially initiating investigations based on his political agenda [17][20] - The DOJ's potential investigation is viewed as a tactic to distract from other issues and silence critics [19][21]

Political Discourse & National Security - The report highlights a controversy surrounding a video featuring six Democratic lawmakers, all military veterans or former national security officials, who urged military and intelligence personnel to uphold their oath to the Constitution and refuse illegal orders [1] - Former President Trump responded to the video by calling it seditious behavior punishable by death, escalating the political tensions [1] - House Speaker Mike Johnson acknowledged the inappropriateness of encouraging troops to disobey orders, raising concerns about national security [10] - The White House is allegedly considering using the military against drug cartels in a manner that some legal experts believe could amount to extrajudicial killings [17] - Concerns are raised about the legality of potential military actions against alleged drug smuggling boats near Venezuela, with a senior military lawyer disagreeing with the administration's position [17] Legal & Ethical Considerations - The Uniform Code of Military Justice mandates that military personnel have a legal and ethical obligation to refuse unlawful orders, a principle rooted in the Nuremberg trials [4][5] - The legality of potential military actions against drug cartels is questioned, particularly concerning the potential for extrajudicial killings and the need for congressional approval [17][23] - The White House's legal justification for military actions against cartels is based on the argument that they are similar to ISIS or al-Qaeda, posing an existential threat to the United States [21] Congressional & Executive Branch Dynamics - The report underscores a deep divide between Democrats and Republicans regarding the role of Congress in checking the power of the executive branch [6][14] - Republican leadership is accused of prioritizing allegiance to former President Trump over their constitutional duty to provide checks and balances against the executive branch [15] - The report suggests that the executive branch is potentially misusing the military and proposing illegal actions, creating a context for the Democratic lawmakers' statement [19][20]

RT Andrew Kolvet (@AndrewKolvet)You encouraged the military to refuse orders from the lawful civil authority, which is flagrantly illegal. President Trump is the Commander-in-Chief, not you. You were advocating for the Third Worlding of the U.S. Government, where a military junta could simply choose seize control of power in a coup d'état. That's the definition of sedition. You don't get to define what an "illegal" order is. The law does, and when there's a dispute, the courts decide. ...