I want to move to this question of sedition.

Um, watch uh uh just for a moment this video that some of these Democrats put out the other day.

You can refuse illegal orders.

You can refuse illegal orders.

You must refuse illegal orders.

No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution.

So, obviously there's two issues here.

There's the why the Democrats why these particular Democrats put this video out.

now.

And then there's Trump's response.

Uh why did why did the Democrats do this and were they were they justified in doing so?

Well, I I I won't make a judgment when they're justified, but I will say the reasoning behind this is there is growing concern.

I've directly heard it from senior military officers both on duty and uh and and retired um about the politicization of the military.

uh you know obviously you have the concerns over what's happening in the Caribbean the the targeting of the Venezuelan uh alleged drug boats whether or not that is legal you had the head of and you had to note the head of US operations in South America and Latin America essentially quit forced out yeah to avoid this subject yeah and and then you had when when Pete Hegsth brought in all the commanders from around the world for that very strange uh you know speech at Quanico uh Donald Trump in in in that speech said that maybe we should use the streets of American cities as training ground for the US military.

Um so there's a lot of concern about will they be ordered to go into the streets of Chicago and to fire on protesters?

Uh what what's going to happen next with the Venezuelan action?

There are concerns and I think that's what those members of Congress were uh right were reacting to.

to the interesting thing here, one interesting thing to me is that this was eminently ignorable by the president.

He didn't have to say anything, but he said a lot.

Yeah.

Again, part of the what Peter's talking about, maybe the spinning out of control part.

I mean, to to go from zero to these Democratic elected lawmakers who are veterans should be executed, it was quite a journey, right?

And it's not like he just said it once.

He re reposted multiple posts about it.

He said they should be hanged.

He said punishable by death.

It was very clear that he was trying to get this message across.

And to Leanne's point, it gets to the sense that he is spinning out of control in part because he realizes, and that's what was at the heart of this message, that some politicians and lawmakers, even within his own party, are looking past him.

They're looking at him as not the ultimate most powerful person who's going to continue to be in power for ever and ever.

He's got three more years left in office, and he's basically a lame duck.

And he does not want people to think that they can ignore his orders or look past him.

And that's part of the reason he wants to put this marker down saying that if people ignore his orders that they could be punishable by death.

Peter, it it's not sedition obviously to articulate that.

It was also a little bit of a troll.

Yeah, maybe.

Yeah.

Well, it's a complicated subject.

I mean, it's simple on the one hand that what they said in the video is absolutely correct.

The law is that military service members should not cannot should obey an illegal order.

That's his oldest time, right?

And in some orders that are clearly illegal, that that would be fine.

The problem is it's a kind of a murky thing right now because in fact, even judges right now are disagreeing with each other about what's legal and not legal about what the president is doing with the military.

So, how is a corporal, you know, who may not be steeped in constitutional law supposed to make that judgment?

So, you can see why any president might find that video a little problematic because it looks like you're encouraging members of the military to decide something might be illegal and therefore disobey uh their commander-in-chief.

But it's the reaction of course that as always with Trump becomes the bigger story.

the idea that we're going to even even if he's just trolling them to suggest that the death penalty is is on order for members of Congress who are themselves veterans or me members of the military or or or the national security establishment u should be you know prosecuted for this is of course not normal and and would be an illegal order by the way that uh that we're talking about right one more topic I want to get to is the substance of the meeting with MBS Muhammad bin Salman the crown prince of Saudi Arabia.

Um, this is what Trump had to say about Jamal Kosoji, the the journalist who was murdered by Saudi intelligence.

A lot of people didn't like that gentleman that you're talking about.

Whether you like him or didn't like him, things happened.

But he knew nothing about it.

And we can leave it at that.

You don't have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that.

Lean, I thought that the most interesting part of that statement was you don't have to embarrass our guest.

It reminds me that pe people have often said this that he treats the White House in a way like his hotel and this is a guest in my hotel and don't ask him these rude questions.

But we're talking about murder.

Yeah.

And there's still a large faction in this country of people who blame him in Saudi Arabia for 9/11 as well.

So, the fact that he was even in the United States at the Oval Office visiting with Donald Trump angered a lot of people.

Um, you know, I don't think that much is very offensive these days, but I thought that that was absolutely offensive.

Um, you know, you know, the fact that he completely dismissed American intelligence about NBS's role in the in the butcher, literal butcher of of uh Jamaal Kosigible.

So, Kosoi.

So, um, you know, and your paper had a great story about just the conflict of interest with Donald Trump having MBS there and how much business he is doing and his family is doing with Saudi Arabia right now.

Um, so there's a lot of issues with that.

John, let let me come to you with a large question that you'll have 30 seconds.

Good.

Yeah, we'll do it all.

Uh, but but but there's a theme here.

We're we're seeing uh just developing a a Ukraine peace plan that obviously privileges Russia, the aggressor in this.

You saw in the Oval Office, crown prince of Saudi Arabia.

The CIA has said approved the the operation approved of the operation that led to the murder of this journalist.

Um Trump doesn't have a lot of sympathy for the underdog.

He wants you got to show strength.

You want to be with the winner at all times.

Um it's uh it I mean this you know in terms of of the MBS meeting.

Um I mean it's I think it's important to point out that I mean Saudi is an a critical player in the region.

Obviously the United States depends on Saudi counterbalance to Iran.

Uh depends on next steps in in in Israel and Gaza.

Um, but you know, I mean to see him directly give him a pass on what the CIA has has found.

Well, what I was thinking when I watched that was the applause that Trump gave Putin in their Alaska in the Alaska meeting.

Last word to you, Peter.

Um, it just seems like the Ukraine trajectory is on the same trajectory as the Saudi trajectory in some ways.

Power.

Yeah, he's picked sides.

This he absolutely right.

He picks strong people, not weak people.

And even this uh this security guarantee he's supposedly offering Ukraine as a condition of part of this peace plan an article five like security guarantee is a good question what an article five like security guarantee is valued from a guy who doesn't believe in the actual article 5 remember in NATO he has said I don't think I should have to protect NATO allies that don't spend enough right well we'll talk about article 5 next week probably or the week after but we're going to have to leave it there for now unfortunately