Managing Partner Anastase Markou provides legal insight into Sen. Slotkin federal investigation

Following an announcement this week from Sen. Elissa Slotkin stating that she’s under federal investigation for participating in a video last November where she and other Democrats with military and intelligence backgrounds urged troops to defy illegal orders, Managing Partner Anastase Markou spoke with WOOD TV 8 about whether the video statement crosses the legal line.

In the video, Slotkin, a veteran who served three tours in Iraq and previously worked for the CIA, and others in the video, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), as well as Democratic Reps. Chris Deluzio (Pa.), Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.), Maggie Goodlander (N.H.) and Jason Crow (Colo.), shared the following message:

“This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens like us. You all swore an oath to protect and defend this constitution.

“Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear,” the group added. “You can refuse illegal orders…you must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution.”

On Wednesday, Jan. 14, WOOD TV 8 spoke with Markou Montague Levine Defense Managing Partner Anastase Markou about the legality of the statements in the video:

WOOD TV8:
What actually crosses the legal line here, and at what point does the senator’s participation in that video about troops become a justice department matter rather than protected political speech?

Anastase Markou:
That is the heart of the question. The United States Constitution protects Senator Slotkin. She’s allowed to give political speech, she’s allowed to make comments that are political in nature and otherwise. The only way that it possibly cross a line is that if it amounts to something that might be considered sedition. Sedition is almost impossible to establish in a case like this because she has to be actively asking people to finally rebel against the government. And that is not at all what she was doing. She was actually reminding them that they have an obligation under the uniformed military justice code to follow the law – they cannot follow unlawful orders. That’s what’s required under their own legal code and she was just reminding them of their legal obligations under the code.

WOOD TV 8:
So if it’s a debate about protected speech or political interference, how do courts balance lawmakers’ First Amendment rights against the military’s strict rules on discipline and unlawful command?

Anastase Markou:
She’s telling people that they have to follow the military code and they cannot follow unlawful orders. If somebody chooses not to follow a lawful order, like a military member, that would be brought in front of the military tribunal. And there’s just a plethora of cases that have happened from the 1950’s onwards in the United State military tribunals where people have either followed an unlawful order or chosen not to follow an unlawful order, and there’s a whole line of cases about what that means. And if someone follows an unlawful order and they commit an act, that is criminal either under state, federal or international law, they run the risk of being prosecuted as a criminal even though it was pursuant to an order.

WOOD TV 8:
Does this come down to intent? Does this make or break this legally speaking – the difference between informing service members of their rights and encouraging them to disobey orders. How would investigators determine that?

Anastase Markou:
So intent is one part of it. But not only does it have to be intent, but the actual activity or the speech has to be something that is clearly tied to particular people and to encourage those particular people to do something that is rebellious against the government. And that’s not even remotely what was done in that in video – not at all.

Watch the full interview, here.