Elizabeth Warren MALFUNCTIONS when Trump General refuses to play her silly games

are golden discipline, how we approach any situation where we had to accomplish the mission and provide the best capability for the task at hand. I'm sorry. I still can't understand your your answer here. I'm just asking a very straightforward question. You tell me you have questioned orders in the past about their legality. Is that right? Senator, I have questioned orders when either one, I didn't understand, I wasn't equipped to carry them out and I needed clarity before I can actually execute those orders. That's the part >> is one of those moments where a single question backfires so badly, you can literally hear the room shift. Elizabeth Warren tries to corner a Trump military nominee on illegal orders, but instead, she walks straight into a reality check about how the military actually works. And the more she pushes, the worse it gets because his answer is calm, precise, and completely unshakable. Stay with me because this is where the narrative falls apart. >> action to attack another country and seize Maduro was unconstitutional and threatens to drag Americans into a war they never voted for. What does the president mean when he says the United States will quote run Venezuela for years? When he says quote Venezuela now has the United States of America, the most powerful military in the world by far, to protect them and protect them we will. It sounds like another forever war. Lieutenant General Donovan, you are nominated to lead Southern Command, which would make you the commander responsible for any future military actions in Venezuela. You won't make policy decisions, but service members will count on you to ensure that they are not asked to engage in military operations that are not legal. Now, according to press reports, your predecessor had serious concerns about illegal orders. That was not the case with these strikes. General Donovan, is it sedition for someone in the military to question whether an order is legal? Senator, in my 37 years of experience, um, received many orders over time and in when I ever have faced a situation where I need to seek clarity, I ask our headquarters to clarify the task. Then I come back and and work on that with legal advisers, the core staff, the subordinate commanders, senior enlisted leaders, and then present present my thoughts to higher headquarters for their consideration. >> So, I think what you're telling me is you have questioned whether an order is legal. Is that right? Senator, I did not What I believe I'm focused on here is that the legality of the order. We face orders, we carry out missions. And so, in that planning process, we look at all aspects of each mission, each task, each order to ensure that we're structuring the command, the force, the unit to achieve the objective. >> that, General, but that's the question I'm trying to ask is is it sedition for someone in the military to question whether an order is legal? And I thought I just heard you say that you had actually questioned orders and whether they were legal and you sought advice. So, I I will ask it one more time. Is it sedition to question whether an order is legal? Senator, I I would not use the term sedition. I use the term basically our golden discipline, how we approach any situation where we had to accomplish the mission and provide the best capability for the task at hand. I'm sorry. I still can't understand your your answer here. I'm just asking a very straightforward question. You tell me you have questioned orders in the past about their legality. Is that right? Senator, I have questioned orders when either one, I didn't understand, I wasn't equipped to carry them out and I needed clarity before I can actually execute those orders. But you've never questioned whether an order was legal. You've never wondered whether or not an order is legal and sought additional counsel on that? Senator, in our planning processes, I always have a legal adviser at my side as part of the planning process. So, I always have leveraged those legal advisers to give me the best best answer. In the end, I'm responsible for the final decision to carry out or not carry out the order. >> I will stop playing dodgeball here. You know, I thought that was going to be the easy question leading to harder questions. Back in 2016, Secretary Hagel said was very clear that service members have a duty not to follow illegal orders. Uh, since then, he has repeatedly made clear his contempt for legal review, including by sidelining military legal advisers, the people who are supposed to help you stay on the right side of the law. And what I wanted to know is how you look at those issues. So, let me try a different version of the question. General Donovan, if your legal adviser tells you that an order is illegal, will you refuse to carry out that order? Senator, the legal adviser is is one of many staff members that would provide their advice as we look at as we look at the scenario, the situation at hand. I will take that very seriously if my legal adviser says that is an illegal order and I will seek clarification from higher headquarters. Okay. And if somebody higher says no, what are you going to do at that point? Senator, then I make a decision using 37 years experience to carry out that order or not. Okay, but your intention is not to carry out an illegal order. Is that right? >> carry illegal orders, Senator. All right, let's break this down because what you just watched is a perfect example of two completely different worlds colliding. Political theater versus a real-world military command. >> [snorts] >> So, Elizabeth Warren comes in with what she clearly thinks is a trap question. The setup is simple. Frame the Trump administration as reckless, suggest military action could be illegal, and then try to force this nominee into admitting that soldiers might be pressured to follow unlawful orders. On paper, it sounds like a strong line of attack, but here's where things start to fall apart. Because the man she's questioning isn't a cable news guest. He's a career military officer. Decades of experience, chain of command, structure, process, discipline. That's the world he operates in, not political gotcha moments. So, when she asks, is it sedition to question whether an order is illegal, she's expecting a clean yes or no. But that's not how the military works, and that's the mistake. Instead of taking the bait, he explains the process slowly, methodically, almost like he's walking her through something she should already understand. He talks about seeking clarification, consulting legal advisers, working through command structures, basically describing a system designed to prevent exactly the kind of chaos she's implying. And you can hear it in her response. She's getting frustrated because she's not getting the headline she wants. She tries again, rephrases, pushes harder. Have you ever questioned whether an order is illegal? Again, she's looking for a moment, something she can point to and say, "See, even he admits there's a problem." But again, he doesn't play along. He sticks to the same principle, process, structure, responsibility. And this is where the tone of the exchange really shifts because now it's not just a disagreement, it's a disconnect. She's trying to simplify something complex into a political sound bite. He's refusing to oversimplify something that in real life carries life-and-death consequences. Then comes the key moment. She pivots to a more direct question. If your legal adviser says an order is illegal, will you refuse it? Now, that sounds like a slam dunk, right? But even here, he stays consistent. He says the legal adviser is part of the process, not the final authority. He'll take it seriously, seek clarification, and then make a decision based on experience and command structure. And that answer is exactly what you'd expect from someone in that position. Because here's the reality. The military doesn't run on one person's opinion, even a legal adviser's. It runs on layered decision-making, accountability, and chain of command. And finally, after all the back and forth, he gives the line that really matters. I will never carry out any legal order. That's the answer she was trying to force from the beginning, but by the time it comes out, the impact is gone because the path to get there exposed the flaw in the questioning. It wasn't about clarity, it was about control. And that's why this moment stands out because what you're seeing isn't just a tense exchange, it's a bigger pattern. Politicians trying to frame complex systems in the simplest, most dramatic way possible, and professionals pushing back by explaining how those systems actually work. And when those two things collide, it usually doesn't go the way the politician expects. Now, you can agree or disagree with either side, but one thing is clear. This wasn't the clean gotcha moment it was supposed to be. It turned into something else entirely, a demonstration of how discipline, structure, and experience don't always fit neatly into political narratives. And honestly, that's why moments like this matter because they show you what happens when real-world responsibility meets political pressure and refuses to bend.