Hours after reports that U.S. commanders were preparing to disobey presidential orders, Donald Trump announced a two-week ceasefire in Iran war

Iran war draws protesters in Chicago (Chicago Sun-Times)

About noon CDT yesterday, reports began surfacing that a retired general said U.S. commanders were preparing to disobey President Donald Trump's unlawful orders to demolish Iran's civil infrastructure.  About six hours later, Trump announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran, backing down from threats of imminent devastation. 

The big question: Were those two events connected, and if so, what impact might that have on Trump's decision-making going forward?

Trump has developed a reputation as a TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out), and that appears to be what's happening now. But we will have to wait for at least two weeks to see how things play out. This much looks certain: Retired General Mark Hertling is playing a central role in trying to steer Trump clear of his threats to ensure that Iran's "whole civilization would die" if it did not adhere to a U.S. deadline to end the war. From an article yesterday at the UK Mirror under the headline "Trump humiliated as ex-general claims commanders  preparing to disobey Iran war orders": 

A former United States general has made the claim that military commanders are preparing to disobey their commander in chief, President Donald Trump, in relation to the current war in Iran.

Over the past days, rhetoric from both Trump and official channels within the Iranian regime have Trump issuing a deadline for the "demolition" of Iran, including power plants and other civilian infrastructure, which experts say would be illegal under international law.

Late on Monday, retired general Mark Hertling appeared on the US news channel MS Now's Deadline: White House podcast, where he alleged that those in charge of delivering on Trump's orders are considering how to defy him.

Gen. Hertling outlined how he trained for 40 years as a soldier and as a commander of US troops and set out the lawful basis for following orders from the very top of the US government.

"You're primarily loyal to the Constitution. You are also loyal to your superiors if they give... lawful orders," he said.

"If they start giving unlawful orders you find a way to push back and make sure they adjust their approach.

"But you are also loyal to the soldiers who are under your command."

Hertling explained how those three loyalties are sometimes conflicting and expressed how military chiefs will be seriously considering their positions in relation to Trump's threats to Iran's civilian infrastructure, which is against one of the key pillars of the post-WWII Geneva Conventions, of which the US is a signatory.

"They will be saying to themselves, 'I cannot obey an unlawful order, I cannot order things I know are absolutely wrong.'"

A few hours after Hertling's words hit the global press, Trump announced a change of heart regarding the deadline he had set for Iran. The Associated Press reported under the headline "US and Iran agree to a 2-week ceasefire as Trump seizes diplomatic offramp": 

U.S. President Donald Trump pulled back on his threats to launch devastating strikes on Iran late Tuesday, swerving to de-escalate the war less than two hours before the deadline he set for Tehran to capitulate to a deal.

Trump said he was holding off on his threatened attacks on Iranian bridges and power plants, as the U.S. and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire that includes the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. He said Iran has proposed a “workable” 10-point peace plan that could help end the war launched by the U.S. and Israel in February.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said it has accepted the ceasefire and that it would negotiate with the United States in Islamabad beginning Friday. Neither Iran nor the United States said when the ceasefire would begin, and attacks took place in Israel, Iran and across the Gulf region early Wednesday.

What will happen over the next two weeks? That is unknown, but this is known: Trump has created a dilemma for US. military officers, as spelled out in a report at the UK Guardian: 

Donald Trump’s threats to carry out mass bombing of civilian infrastructure in Iran present US military officers with a dilemma: disobey orders or help commit war crimes. . . . 

“We are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously,” Trump said in prepared remarks that were amplified by the state department’s social media accounts.

There is little debate among legal experts that such an attack on the life-supporting infrastructure for 93 million Iranians would constitute a war crime.

“Such rhetorical statements – if followed through – would amount to the most serious war crimes – and thus the president’s statements place service members in a profoundly challenging situation,” two former judge advocate general (JAG) officers, Margaret Donovan and Rachel VanLandingham wrote on the website Just Security on Monday.

“As former uniformed military lawyers who advised targeting operations, we know the president’s words run counter to decades of legal training of military personnel and risk placing our warfighters on a path of no return.”

They noted that Trump’s boast that he would bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages,” and the order by his defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, to show “no quarter, no mercy” were not just “plainly illegal” but they also represented a rupture from the moral and legal principles that US military personnel have been “trained to follow their entire careers.”

Charli Carpenter, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said there were many historical examples of service members questioning orders, refusing to obey, passively disobeying or even intervening to stop war crimes.

She cited as an example US soldiers who refused to take part in the 1968 My Lai massacre in Vietnam, including a helicopter pilot who threatened to shoot the perpetrators.

In his court martial, the officer who ordered his men to gun down hundreds of Vietnamese villagers, 2nd Lt William Calley, argued that he was only obeying orders, but the court ruled that was no defence as such orders were “palpably illegal”.

The question is whether officers who potentially carry out orders to bomb Iranian power stations and bridges could argue that they did not know it was “palpably illegal”.

When Democratic members of Congress published a video message in November telling US service members “you can refuse illegal orders, you must refuse illegal orders”, Trump went on Truth Social to accuse them of “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH”.

“There are many factors that make it hard to say ‘no’ or stand up to stop war crimes, especially where there are grey areas in the law,” Carpenter said.

“What the law requires of enlisted troops is to disobey only ‘manifestly unlawful’ orders – orders so egregiously unlawful that a person of ordinary understanding would know they were wrong.

“However, this skill and moral judgment is not drilled into troops in the same way they are taught to follow the chain of command and go along with their small units, and troops can also be court-martialed for insubordination if they guess wrong.”

After admitting he ignored the advice of his generals on a life-saving mission in the Iran war, Donald Trump indicated his war on journalism remains at full throttle

A Trump presser for the ages (NY Times)

Many Americans probably have not been sleeping well since President Donald Trump signaled on Easter Sunday that he plans to escalate our war in Iran. The search for shuteye likely will get more difficult after Trump admitted yesterday that he is prone to ignoring advice from his generals. That suggests Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth are winging it in Iran. (Note: Longtime Alabama attorney and investigative journalist Donald Watkins refers to Hegseth as a "commode-hugging drunk," a phrase that conjures up all kinds of disturbing images. And based on press accounts, it appears to be discomfitingly accurate.)

For good measure, Trump showed he can be a threat to national security, while simultaneously escalating his war on journalists. That all came down yesterday during a wild White House press conference. Will Americans ever get decent rest until the Orange Menace is removed from office? Unfortunately, that seems like a pretty timely question.

At its Facebook page, Occupy Democrats has a report on the batshit craziness in the Brady Press Room. We suggest you buckle up:

In the span of just a few extraordinary minutes at the White House yesterday, Donald Trump nearly leaked classified military intelligence, admitted he overruled his own generals on a mission that could have killed hundreds of Americans, and stopped to compliment a four-star general's looks.

We wish we could say that this is satire, but this happened at the White House podium.

Even worse, this all transpired right after Trump vowed to track down the reporter who leaked the story that one of the pilots shot down over Iran had not been initially rescued — a damning revelation about the failures of his vaunted military operation. Rather than address the substance of that failure, Trump's instinct was pure autocrat: find the leaker, punish the truth-teller.

Then, almost immediately, he nearly became the biggest leaker in the room himself.

The press conference featured another oddity: Trump is notorious for being untruthful, but he actually displayed disarming candor -- although it was not necessarily a good thing in this instance. From Occupy Democrats:

When a reporter asked whether all of his military advisers had supported the rescue mission, Trump's answer was stunning in its candor: "There were people within the military that said this is not a wise…" He paused and then said, "I decided to do it."

His own generals told him not to do it. He did it anyway. And then he wanted to tell the whole world exactly how many troops he sent in.

"How many men did you send altogether, approximately, for the operation?" Trump asked Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair General Dan Caine — out loud, at a public press conference, on camera. 

Caine's response was the desperate intervention of a man watching classified information about to spill onto live television: "I'd love to keep that a secret."

Trump's response to being told by the nation's top military officer that troop numbers should remain classified? "Okay, well, but I will tell you the number. I'll keep it a secret, but it was hundreds and hundreds of these people."

He then pivoted — mid-sentence, mid-crisis — to compliment General Caine's appearance. "Is he central casting?" Trump marveled, apparently unable to get through a discussion about a mission that nearly cost hundreds of American lives without remarking on how cinematic his general looks. 

Shocking? It might have been to some people. But perhaps it should be expected in a country that allows a former TV game-show host to become president -- and remain president long after his expiration date. Trump was close to winding down, but he still had one stunningly graceless line up his sleeve, as Occupy Democrats reports:

Then came the line that should haunt every American: "Hundreds of people could have been killed. Forget about the equipment, a lot of equipment, nobody cares. Hundreds of people could have been killed."

Nobody cares about the equipment? The American taxpayers' money and the military hardware lost over Iran? Nobody cares?

The generals said it wasn't wise. Trump understood. Trump did it anyway. Hundreds of Americans were put in mortal danger. And when someone told the truth about what went wrong, Trump threatened to destroy them — while nearly spilling classified troop numbers himself at a press conference.

The most frightening thing is that this is the man with the nuclear codes.

After Trump's vile, profane Easter message threatening to commit war crimes against Iran, is it time for the U.S. military to force a lawless regime out of power?

(Facebook)

Donald Trump's second term has been filled with incredible moments -- and not in a good way. Perhaps the most incredible moment of all came yesterday morning as Trump addressed leaders of Iran by threatening to commit possible war crimes against their country. For good measure, Trump tossed in some colorful language, including an f-bomb and a b-bomb ("bastards"). To top it off, Trump displayed impeccable timing, publishing his missive on Easter Sunday, the most sacred day on the Christian calendar. Both the content and the tone of Trump's message were unlike any presidential communication Americans have ever received -- at least in my lifetime. It also raised questions anew about whether Trump is fit to hold his office -- he isn't -- and if someone/anyone will try to hold him accountable, perhaps via the 25th Amendment, impeachment, or some type of military intervention.

It has been evident for months that Trump is not emotionally or intellectually suited to serve as president. And he is surrounded by people who have failed at their jobs. So what do we do now? In blunt terms, we have to get rid of Trump, his vice president, his speaker of the House, his cabinet members, his Oval Office staff, and all of his Republican enablers (both inside and outside Congress.)

No reasonable American has ever lived through a moment like this, so finding a clear path forward likely will be difficult. But this much should be clear: It is time to quit playing softball with an administration that has no respect for the rule of law or constitutional norms. Trump is turning us into a lawless banana republic, and we cannot allow that to continue.

That's why military intervention, it seems to me, might be our best first step. Regular folks, like you and I, generally don't have the capacity, or the desire, to take such action. People don't grow up in America thinking they will ever need to engage in a coup. Our military personnel, however, know how to respond to such quandaries. For one, they are taught not to obey unlawful orders. Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth have shown a willingness to bend the law beyond recognition. And  consider this moral question: With Trump threatening to commit war crimes, do military personnel have an obligation to keep that from happening? 

This might sound crude, but we need to round up the most visible Trumpers, put them before some type of truth commission, with the charge to conduct Nuremburg-style trials. Where appropriate -- when evidence shows crimes have been committed against our Constitution -- we must be willing to apply appropriate punishment.

I submit that we also need a thorough investigation of the 2024 election to determine if Trump lawfully won. I have my doubts, and many of you probably do, too. We know Elon Musk engaged in dubious schemes to pay people to vote. We also have seen signs that Russian emails were tied to bomb threats received at polling sites on election day 2024. Were Trump, Musk, or their surrogates involved in initiating that? Is it possible that Trump did not really win, that he has been an imposter president all along? We need to find out.

Also, we know a poll showed Trump opening up a five-point lead over Joe Biden soon after the so-called assassination attempt in Pennsylvania. In other words, that event helped launch Trump to victory, but we have seen no thorough investigation to determine if the official story of the event holds up, and family members of victims want answers. As I have reported here at Legal Schnauzer, it is extremely unlikely that Trump's ear could have stayed intact and grown back after being "nicked" by a bullet from an AR-15 rifle.

Perhaps, the most difficult part is this: We must devise a system for revising our laws to address the weaknesses that allowed a President Trump to take office and to make sure such an ill-equipped administration never takes hold again.

Am I sounding unhinged? To some people I'm sure the answer will be yes. But I hope others will either agree or at least be thinking along similar lines. In my view, the time for half measures and "watchful waiting" is over. Trump appears to be mentally ill -- and that has been the case for months -- and his acolytes take dysfunction to new heights. That makes them dangerous and threatens world stability.

What led me to write the above? Let's start by examining what we will call  "Trump's Unsilent Easter Scream." One of the best accounts I've seen of the basic events comes from a jointly published article at AFP (Agence France Presse) and Yahoo! News. Under the headline "Trump draws criticism with fiery Easter message on Iran," Robin Legrand writes:

US President Donald Trump did not take a break from his polarizing rhetoric on Easter Sunday, delivering an expletive-laden attack on Iran that sparked criticism on Capitol Hill and beyond.

"Open the Fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH!" the president wrote just after 8:00 am, renewing his threat to unleash heavy bombing on Iranian power plants and bridges if Tehran refused to unblock the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

"Praise be to Allah," he added, apparently sardonically, after ending another threatening message a day earlier with "Glory be to GOD!"

Readers around the globe are used to being exposed to Trump's crude, erratic, nonsensical  language. But he chose Easter as the time to sink to new depths, Legrand writes:

While the Republican president is well known for his straight talk, the post on his Truth Social network raised eyebrows, especially on a Christian holiday.

"Happy Easter, America. As you head off to church and celebrate with friends and family, the President of the United States is ranting like an unhinged madman on social media," Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on X.

"He's threatening possible war crimes and alienating allies. This is who he is, but this is not who we are. Our country deserves so much better."

For Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who opposes the war in Iran, Trump's attitude was "completely, utterly unhinged."

Murphy added: "If I were in Trump's Cabinet, I would spend Easter calling constitutional lawyers about the 25th Amendment," referring to the clause that provides for a transfer of power if the president is unable to serve.

Does it hurt America to have a president who cannot seem to muster even a slight display of decorum? At least one senator suggests the answer is yes:

Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, also a Democrat, noted it was not the first time that the 79-year-old Trump had used stark language since the US and Israel launched their assault on the Islamic republic in late February.

"Bombing them back to the Stone Age, cursing them," Kaine said on NBC's "Meet the Press" news program.

"This is all embarrassing and juvenile, and it's people trying to act like they're puffed up and tough, when what we really see from the administration in this war is the absence of a plan, the absence of a clear rationale."

How sorry is the state of the postmodern Republican Party. One-time firebrand Marjorie Taylor Greene now appears to be the GOP's "adult in the room." At least one other conservative figure made no pretense about being an adult. Legrand writes:

Criticism was not limited to Trump's Democratic opponents.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, the former congresswoman who was once a staunch Trump backer but now a fervent critic, slammed his message, especially on Easter Sunday.

"Everyone in his administration that claims to be a Christian needs to fall on their knees and beg forgiveness from God and stop worshipping the President and intervene in Trump's madness," Greene said in a post on X.

"Our President is not a Christian and his words and actions should not be supported by Christians," said Greene, who opposes US military interventions abroad.

Some however praised Trump's fiery rhetoric.

Conservative firebrand commentator Laura Loomer, who speaks regularly with Trump and has described herself as an Islamophobe, had nothing but praise.

"This is what I voted for. Bomb jihadis back to the Stone Age where their mentality permanently lives," Loomer wrote on X.

"Trump said he's going to bomb their infrastructure in Iran, and then he said 'Praise be to Allah'. On Easter. Amazing. Just amazing." 

I have to agree with Loomer on one point: Trump is amazing; just not in the way she thinks.

Pam Bondi is gone as U.S. attorney general, but House Democrats say she will not be forgotten, as they vow to hold her accountable, especially regarding Epstein files

Pam Bondi might be gone from her role as U.S. attorney general, but House Democrats vow she will not soon be forgotten. In fact, an article at HuffPost indicates Dems tend to make sure Bondi's life becomes quite unpleasant. Under the headline "Pam Bondi must still answer for Epstein files cover-up, House Dems say," Ryan Grenoble writes:

Pam Bondi may no longer be the U.S. attorney general, but she’s still on the hook for everything that happened while she was, Democrats say. 

After news of Bondi’s firing trickled out Thursday, Democratic lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee re-upped their commitment to deposing Bondi and forcing her to answer questions about the Justice Department files on sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as well as about his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, under oath.

“Attorney General Pam Bondi has been leading a White House cover-up of the Epstein files. She has weaponized the Department of Justice to protect Donald Trump and put survivors in harm’s way by exposing their identities,” said ranking member Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.). “She will not escape accountability and remains legally obligated to appear before our committee under oath.”

Garcia said that “serious” investigations into the conduct of former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem will also continue.

“If they think we are moving on because they were fired,” said Garcia, “they are gravely mistaken.”

Other Democrats joined Garcia in taking a "we mean business approach," Grenoble reports:

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who, along with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), helped force the release of the Justice Department’s files concerning Epstein, also said he expects Bondi to comply.

Khanna pointed out that he and Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) had “subpoenaed Bondi to testify before the Oversight Committee on April 14th. Even though she has been fired, she must still answer to Congress about the remaining documents, why there have been no new prosecutions, and why she participated in a cover-up.”

Dems generally seem disinclined to grant any wayward Trumpers "Get Out of Jail Free" cards. Grenoble writes:

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.), who also sits on the committee, agreed.

“Pam Bondi may be leaving the Department of Justice, but she must still follow the law and respond to the Oversight Committee’s subpoena to be deposed about covering up Epstein files,” he said in a statement. “I have a lot of questions. The American people deserve answers, and the Epstein survivors deserve justice.”

House Dems, like many members of the public, seem particularly interested in Bondi's actions connected to the Epstein files -- and that is understandable. But any inquiry should not stop there. Consider some of the ugliness surrounding her office that reflects disdain for the rule of law.  Here is a USA Today summary of controversies that swirled around Bondi as AG.

Perhaps nothing defines the warped nature of Bondi's tenure like a press release from the House Committee on the Judiciary, headed by Democrats ranking member Jamie Raskin. Dated 2/11/26, the release is titled "15 Questions Pam Bondi Refused to Answer Before Congress":

Here are the questions the Attorney General refused to answer before Congress, amid nationwide calls for truth and transparency: 

1. Bondi refused to answer how many of Epstein’s co-conspirators her DOJ has indicted (zero).   
    
2. Bondi refused to answer whether she would create a joint task force to give state attorneys general and district attorneys around the country access to DOJ’s trove of evidence regarding Epstein and his co-conspirators, so they can go build the cases and bring the indictments DOJ refuses to pursue.
    
3. Bondi refused to answer whether the email from the Epstein files involving Steve Tisch is worthy of further investigation.   
    
4. Bondi refused to answer whether it’s important for prosecutors to protect sexual assault victims’ identities.
    
5. Bondi refused to answer why 500 of her attorneys somehow didn’t redact dozens of survivors’ names, identities, and sensitive photographs.
6. Bondi refused to answer why she refused to investigate Prince Andrew who is shown in disturbing photos in the Epstein files.  
    
7. Bondi refused to answer whether she has knowledge if President Trump was at parties with underage girls.  
    
8. Bondi refused to answer whether she has prepared a list of so-called domestic terrorism groups. And she refused to commit to providing the committee with that list.  
    
9. Bondi refused to answer when DOJ decided not to investigate Lex Wexner as a co-conspirator and why.  
    
10. Bondi refused to answer whether DOJ owes anything to Epstein’s victims, even as Donald Trump sues for $10 billion in personal damages from the federal government.
11.  Bondi refused to answer how many employees work at the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team (which she eliminated).
12. Bondi refused to answer whether DOJ has questioned Secretary Lutnick and other Administration officials about their ties to Epstein.  
     
13. Bondi refused to answer who at DOJ signed off on Ghislaine Maxwell’s transfer.
     
14. Bondi refused to answer whether her Department would consider recommending a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell. 
     
15. Bondi refused to answer whether the President has lied when he spread a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory about the murder of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman.