Ben Meiselas of MeidasTouch commented last week that President Trump awakened in “full panic mode” allowing us to see “a violent, public unraveling from a sitting president who once again threatened to execute elected lawmakers for doing their jobs and upholding the Constitution.” The six Democrats, all military veterans or former intelligence officials, in a video were simply reminding US service personnel to remember their sworn oaths and not follow unlawful orders; yet the president himself is flailing with intensified rage and Meiselas says the question is “not whether his behavior is dangerous — it is whether our institutions, our media and our citizens are prepared to confront that danger before the chaos he is creating becomes irreversible.” Trump isn’t operating from strength — his tantrums and threats reveal his weakness, and his predicament causes his lashing out. It should be mentioned that even Fox’s legal analyst reminded viewers that refusing unlawful orders is required under US law and should be understood in a functioning democracy.

Trump posted on social media that the six are “traitors,” accusing them of “seditious behavior punishable by death.” He urged that they should be hanged because, “George Washington would hang them,” and that they should be put on trial and face their punishment. The top military lawyer overseeing operations in the Caribbean and Pacific regions concluded that recent US military actions my constitute “extrajudicial killings,” which of course, was overruled by Attorney General Pam Bondi and her Department of Justice lackeys. The Don’s media outbursts are paths to exacting revenge, but also about distractions to draw attention away from the Epstein news, the economy, unemployment, and his tariffs. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt insists that her boss doesn’t wish to execute these members of Congress, merely to see them “held accountable.” She insists that the president hasn’t given any illegal orders while accusing the lawmakers of attempting to incite violence by encouraging active duty military to defy the chain of command.

As might be expected, Republicans went to the president’s defense, attacking the six Democrats for threatening the country’s national security. Wishy-washy House Speaker Johnson interpreted Trump’s statement as “defining sedition,” and that the “so-called leaders in Congress” are “out of control” in their “wildly inappropriate” behavior. Senator Chuck Schumer commented, “When Trump uses the language of execution and treason, some of his supporters may very well listen. He is lighting a match in a country soaked with political gasoline.” Senator Rand Paul told Chris Cuomo, “There is no resistance on the the Republican side. They are afraid, they are frightened to cross him. He’s become more involved in primaries than any president has. They are just afraid. Even the ones who have a correct instinct are afraid to say anything.” Paul said on ‘Face the Nation‘ that the president’s remark were “reckless, inappropriate, irresponsible” and that the country “can do better.” In this same vein, former Trump DOJ appointee, Chad Mizelle laid out his approach at a Federalist Society meeting on winning judicial fights in Pennsylvania. He shared a story involving his father’s implicit threats to put down stray cats in the family’s yard, suggesting that Trump should stand up to judges and say, “Judges, I know how to deal with stray cats.” This would seem to be the new strategy on the extreme-right: “If you can’t beat ’em, kill ’em.”

Joyce Vance writes on her Civil Discourse blog: “Trump continues to use his claimed power to kill people who have received no due process, in international waters, based on his administration’s assertion that they are narcoterrorists.” It is telling that Trump last week met with Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, who likely ordered the killing of US-based Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi during Trump’s first term as president. Trump tells a reporter who brought up the correspondent’s death, “A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about. Whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen.” The point is evident that even if the six Congress members who made the video had done something traitorous or unlawful, neither of which they did, the president doesn’t get to impose punishment or impose the death penalty. That only happens in countries like North Korea, Iran, and…Saudi Arabia, writes Vance. Further, she says, “George Washington would, most certainly, not have hung members of Congress for expressing their views. He would not have approved of what Donald Trump said today, or pretty much any day…this president’s words have all too frequently become actions once spoken to his followers.”

One of Trump’s ‘condemned,’ Senator Mark Kelly, called on Republicans in Congress to denounce President Trump’s threats against he and his five ‘traitor‘ compatriots. “We’ve heard very little, basically crickets, from Republicans in the US Congress about what the president has said about hanging members of Congress,” Kelly told host Margaret Brennan on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation.’ In a piece on MS Now, retired USAF Lt. Col. Rachel E. VanLandingham, wrote, “the six well-intentioned congressional Democrats who made the video likely did more harm than good for those of us who appreciate the quandary our service members are actually in — a political stunt that disrespects those in uniform.” The six are demanding that military members disobey unlawful orders without specifying just what military orders they are to disobey without acknowledging the grave risk that disobedience carries, VanLandingham believes — which only adds to the moral injury those in uniform are carrying, since there is no specificity.

Orders are issued with a presumption of legality, and disobedience would come at great risk to a service member’s career and liberty, and should that member interpret the ‘refuse unlawful orders’ demand as permission to not obey, then that member would be refusing at the risk of having to prove the illegality for their actions in a court-martial. VanLandingham says, “It’s awfully cavalier for lawmakers to urge that some unspecified order be disobeyed when they’re not the ones who’d be risking their career or even jail time for refusing an order.” The military also could always forgo court-martial and instead use what’s called ‘adverse administrative action’ to force a discharge, which would make it more difficult for a judge to answer the question about a particular order’s legality. The ‘Manual for Courts-Martial‘ has a subset of orders termed ‘patently’ or ‘manifestly’ illegal — an order ‘that directs the commission of a crime,’ under which a service member would be criminally liable.

VanLandingham goes on to say, “However, the bar for what constitutes a patently unlawful order is high and has, practically speaking, been largely reserved to obvious war crimes, that concept being forged  during the famous Nuremberg trials when the victorious Allies refused to allow the ‘superior orders’ defense to excuse the worst industrial-scale atrocities witnessed by mankind. The Nuremberg legacy is that a ‘patently unlawful order’ must be disobeyed, and the highest US military appellate court has described such an order as ‘one which a man of ordinary sense and understanding would, under the circumstances, know to be unlawful, or if the order in question is actually known to the accused to be unlawful.”” An example is when the court applied this standard to uphold US Army Lt. William Calley’s murder convictions for killing unarmed Vietnamese men, women and children at the hamlet of My Lai during the Vietnam War, despite the Nuremberg-esque defense that he was just following orders.

VanLandingham concludes, “What these lawmakers should have done is work to get enough bipartisan support to stop the executive branch’s excesses. Instead, they confused the issue and wrongly put service members in the middle of a political struggle. The sooner lawmakers on Capitol Hill realize that the military is not going to save us — and that’s by design — the sooner they will acknowledge that that’s a job for civilians. Hopefully with Congress leading the way.”

Again, last week, Trump press secretary Leavitt was forced to defend his badmouthing a reporter who asked a legitimate Epstein files question that he refused to face. The president lashed out at the female reporter by saying, “Quiet, piggy!” Leavitt justified his outburst, telling journalists at the White House briefing, “Look, the president is very frank and honest with everyone in the room. You’ve all seen it yourself. You’ve all experienced it yourselves. And I think it’s one of the many reasons that the American people reelected this president, because of his frankness. And he calls out fake news when he sees it. He gets frustrated with reporters when you lie about him, when you spread fake news about him and his administration. But he is the most transparent president in history, and he gives all of you in this room, as you all know, unprecedented access. So I think everyone in this room should appreciate the frankness and the openness that you get from President Trump on a near-daily basis.”

The Daily Dose of Democracy website, calling Leavitt ‘The Minister of Doublegrift Trumpthink,’ calls the “president’s disgusting, misogynistic attack on a female reporter with a smirking tornado of condescending lies would have left George Orwell speechless. That’s right, piggies, you should be GRATEFUL that the Most Beneficent Golden Leader magnanimously graces you swine with his presence. You should be grateful for the opportunity to have your dignity and professionalism disparaged on a daily basis!” Cynthia Miller-Idriss wrote on MS Now, “Those two little words — a low among lows for sexist comments from a sitting president — speak volumes about how Trump views women. They should be a warning sign about the rampant normalization of misogyny in the US political culture, and how it could affect our democracy more broadly. Hostile sexism is now the biggest — or among the top three — predictors of support for political violence and willingness to engage in it in survey research across multiple countries, including the US. We should be very concerned about how overt misogyny from political leaders may affect democracy, political violence and social cohesion.”

Miller-Idriss writes, “Some of this misogyny is cloaked as a call for a return to male leadership or more ‘masculine’ approaches over supposedly lesser feminine ones.” As examples, she notes Mark Zuckerberg’s call for more masculine energy in the corporate world, and Defense Secretary Hegseth’s announcing a return to the “highest male standards” for combat roles. She terms Trump’s bigger, bolder kind of misogyny taking center stage with his gendered slur as an attempt to disparage, belittle and put a woman in her place, an intent to insult and to erode the confidence and authority of a woman. The writer says it is no coincidence that Trump so easily reached for an animal slur to degrade and dehumanize a woman who was just doing her job. His slurs convey that a woman is insufficiently disciplined or slender, or that her behavior is unnatural, so aggressive that it can only be described as unhuman — similar to the popular slur ‘bitch,’ often directed at powerful or ambitious women whose behavior is cast as ‘uppity’ or difficult, and seen as insufficiently feminine, deferential, gentle, helpful or pleasing.

Miller-Idriss maintains that pairing ‘piggy‘ with an actual directive to be quiet makes it clearer that the goal is to silence women for speaking up, to punish her for daring to question Trump’s authority, a phrase that just popped out of his mouth spontaneously. Women who violate the unspoken rules about where they belong are met with swift reminders to stay in their place — such as the postelection celebratory chants and memes “get back in the kitchen” or “make me a sandwich.” She concludes: “‘Quiet, piggy‘ is only the latest terrible example. And if we stay quiet, the one thing we know is it won’t be the last.”

At this writing it’s too early to know if Trump will initiate his ‘stray cats‘ strategy for US District Judge Cameron Currie who dismissed the cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, by ruling that Trump’s retribution appointee, attorney Lindsey Halligan, was never eligible to assume that post. Cameron dismissed the indictments without prejudice, meaning another prosecutor could try to bring charges at a later time. It’s a good bet that Trump will continue to harass his perceived adversaries in any way possible since it’s taxpayer money footing the bill, so expect him to continue his technique of asking his DOJ to pinpoint his victim, then establish a crime.

Is it possible that President Trump is beginning to see the folly of his ways regarding his tariffs and the burden being place upon the American taxpayer? He has proposed sending $2,000 checks to “low and middle income” citizens, funded by tariff collections, with any money left over to go to “SUBSTANTIALLY PAY DOWN NATIONAL DEBT.” Middle class income ranges from $56,000 to $169,800, depending on residency location, but it is estimated that even if the proposal were capped at $100,000, the tariff revenue would not be enough to cover the cost of checks — and forget addressing the national debt! The Tax Foundation’s Erica York notes that about 150 million citizens earn less than $100,000, resulting in a $300 billion payout against the annual tariff revenue of $217 billion. Trump posted on social media, “We are taking in Trillions of Dollars and will soon begin paying down our ENORMOUS DEBT, $37 Trillion,” just as the Supreme Court is set to weigh in on the legality of his tariffs.

It has been reported that singer Katy Perry and former Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, are “making plans for the holidays” after stepping out publicly as a couple. According to Harry Thompson of The Daily Beast, the Canadian politician who led his country for nine years “is much happier now, his stresses are greatly diminished. And he is intrigued by Katy.” As you might expect, Andy Borowitz, in his The Borowitz Report has contributed to this news: “In a move that has further imperiled relations between the US and its northern neighbor, on Monday Melania Trump hiked tariffs on Canada to 10,000% in retaliation for Katy Perry dating Justin Trudeau. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney attempted to mollify the First Lady by stressing that his government had no jurisdiction over the love lives of his predecessor and the pop star. But Mrs. Trump was unmoved, holding a White House press conference to blast the Trudeau-Perry romance. ‘There are many bad things in world right now,’ she said. ‘This be worst.‘”