Former CIA Claims Military Stopped Trump Nuke Order

0:00I'm trying as hard as I can to focus on anything and anyone other than Trump this week and going forward as much as humanly possible. And it's proving to be more difficult than I thought in some ways and much easier than I thought in others. Because he's in our face everywhere, destroying everything he touches like King Midas in reverse. Instead of everything he touches turning into gold, it turns into you-know-what. Fantastic. Why am I trying to ignore Trump? Because I'm trying to move past him and act like we are living in the post-Trump era now. Maybe it's just a line of BS I'm feeding myself to cope with the realities of the world we're living in today.

0:34And maybe there's also something to be said about the power of releasing that kind of toxic energy and separating yourself from it on a daily, hourly, and up-to-the-minute basis in our obsessive-compulsive consumption of the 24-7 news cycle. So President Donald Trump tried to use nuclear codes during a meeting about the war with Iran, according to a former CIA officer, this in the top trending story at Newsweek right now. A friendly reminder to subscribe to Newsweek Radio if you want the latest hot take on what's trending at Newsweek. Speaking on the YouTube show Judging Freedom, Larry Johnson claimed that Trump tried to access nuclear codes amid a discussion about the ongoing conflict in Iran, but was stopped by General Dan Cain, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

1:20Now, there is no evidence to support these claims. Newsweek reached out to the White House by email to comment on this story outside of normal business hours, and they have yet to respond. like they would ever admit to something like this. Who the hell is Larry Johnson, though? Well, he's a former CIA who served as the deputy director of the U.S. State Department Office of Counterterrorism from 1989 to 1993. He said that Trump participated in an emergency meeting on Saturday night. Quote, Trump wanted to use the nuclear codes, and General Dan Cain stood up and said no. Trump invoked his privilege as the head of the military, so to speak, and it was apparently quite a blow-up, unquote.

1:59Good Lord. What a terrifying situation. I would certainly hope that our military would stand up to Trump in a situation like this. It's unfortunate that it would ever need to come to that. But if Trump's cheese is sliding off his cracker by the day, then wouldn't it be the responsibility of our military to disobey a direct order when the man behind it is a few french fries short of a happy meal? The one and only McDonald's. I've gone there a couple of times. And I'm honored to stand before you as the very first former McDonald's fry cook ever to become president of the United States. U.S. service members not only may refuse an illegal order, they are legally obligated to do so.

2:46And that obligation does extend all the way up the chain of command, including orders that originate with the president. And if what this former CIA officer is saying is even remotely accurate, we could, in theory, have a constitutional crisis on our hands. As if that would be surprising to anybody who's paying attention at this point. I should clarify, if what happened here is true at all, it could very likely trigger a constitutional crisis. It's just not automatic. It all depends on what happens next. And keeping this hypothetical, of course. But let's walk through it as a real-time scenario, not theory.

3:20When crazy people have nuclear weapons, bad things happen. So the President of the United States, as Commander-in-Chief, enters a secure room and issues an order to launch a nuclear strike on Iran. It's not framed as a military operation or as a response to an imminent threat, but as a broad strike that would take out population centers. The order is transmitted through the chain of command and reaches senior military leadership, generals and commanders whose responsibility is not just execution, but making sure that any order they carry out is lawful. At that point, one of those senior officials determines that the order is illegal.

3:54Under the laws of armed conflict and the Geneva Conventions, intentionally targeting civilians is prohibited. It's a clear violation. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that officer is not only allowed to refuse the order, but also required to do so. It is not an act of insubordination, but an act of compliance with the law. So the situation immediately becomes a standoff, which could be where we're at right now, not even knowing it. The president has issued a direct order and the military has declined to carry it out. Now, Trump can either go along with it or they could modify the order to something a little bit more legitimate.

4:31But if Trump insists on moving forward, which he's known to do, the situation escalates rapidly because the president can attempt to bypass the objecting officer, replace them, and find someone else willing to execute the order. doesn't that pattern sound familiar? At that point, the question is no longer hypothetical. It becomes structure. Is the military obligated to follow the president in all circumstances, or is it bound first to the law of the Constitution? The formal answer is that loyalty runs to the Constitution, not to any individual. That's the principle that is being tested here in real time under extreme pressure.

5:09There is no procedure in the Constitution for resolving this exact moment. And J.D. Vance doesn't have what it takes to dethrone the king with the 25th Amendment, or the backing even if he did. So in this scenario, the only barrier between the order and its execution is the judgment of individuals within the chain of command. And if the military continues to refuse and the president continues to press the issue, yes, then the system enters what would widely be recognized as a constitutional crisis. Not because the military is acting outside of the system, but because two core principles of the system are in direct conflict.

5:45At that point, the outcome depends less on written rules and more on whether the surrounding institutions move quickly enough to contain the situation. And again, did any of this really happen at the White House on Saturday? This entire scenario is all based on what one might assume is plausible. If, and it's a big if, what former CIA officer Larry Johnson is saying is true. That's exactly where we should slow down just a minute. Johnson's a former intelligence analyst, yes, but he doesn't have access to classified information. That doesn't mean he's inventing things out of thin air, but it doesn't mean he's the primary or definitive source of something this serious.

6:23On the other hand, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if everything he said was true. Would you? I have the right to do whatever I want as president, but I don't even talk about that.