This is the first installment of “The Other Side,” a monthly piece where I take a position many of you hold, sometimes one I hold myself, and build the strongest case against it that I know how to build.
Watson is a brave man and has my admiration. But from what you've written he broke the law in acts of civil disobedience and the charges seem merited. I hope he gets off easy and the next Democratic President should pardon him.
Soldier Jailed for Words Is a Warning Every Senator Must Heed
Dear Sen Schiff,
I write as your constituent to demand congressional action in defense of Air Force Maj. Jason Watson, an active-duty officer now facing court-martial — including three specifications under Article 88 of the UCMJ for "contemptuous" statements about President Trump.
Watson's alleged offense was public dissent. In July, he stood on the Capitol steps calling for the President's impeachment, accompanied by a sitting Member of Congress, Rep. Al Green of Texas — precisely the lawful accompaniment Capitol Police require for such demonstrations. He was later charged criminally for that protest, for a Substack interview, and for a CNN appearance, and he remains in pre-trial confinement.
Read that again: a 17-year Air Force veteran is being prosecuted for calling for impeachment through Congress, in the presence of a Member of Congress, while unarmed and nonviolent. His attorney says he may be the first major in military history charged under Article 88.
When a Commander-in-Chief responds to criticism from the ranks by jailing service members rather than answering the substance of their concerns, he is not exercising presidential authority — he is exercising the authority of a dictator. The chilling effect on every uniformed service member who might question unlawful orders or unconstitutional conduct is immediate and severe.
I am asking you to:
1. Publicly demand the Air Force release Maj. Watson from pre-trial confinement pending trial;
2. Open oversight hearings into the use of Article 88 to prosecute political speech which is *not* explicitly worded in the article; and
3. Introduce or support legislation clarifying that Article 88 cannot be weaponized to criminalize calls for constitutional accountability made through lawful channels.
Congress cannot stand by while a service member is imprisoned for defending the Constitution he swore to protect. I expect a response outlining the concrete steps you will take.
I'll be doing this once a month, just like I would with facts before a jury. In this case, I'm not rendering any type of judgment against Watson. I'm simply trying to clarify the story and social media posts everyone seems to be sharing.
If there is a valid reason that the Uniform Code of Military Justice applies to Maj. Jason Watson, for stating the obvious, then it applies to Trump and Kegseth as well.
Good question. If Kegseth ever served in the military, he would. At present time, or as things are interpreted now, Trump is not under UCMJ even as commander “in chief” but as an unworthy leader, someone not to follow, if his policies cause military personnel to violate their oath and actual duties, they will be.
That's what I'm trying to do here on my Substack. So much happening each and every day, just like Trump's executive order not too long ago renaming Lake Ontario to Lake America. I just shared a new note about that. It's crazy.
We are all very grateful for your dedication to Truth and correctness. Maj. Jason Watson, who is standing forth for correctness; this takes courage and dedication to stand forth for the example to all. The JAG members have been replaced; do not know who those are who will hear Maj. Jason Watson's story; the military members are themselves under attack, as we have read. This Maj. will find justice in the end; We stand with him.
Of course we do, but we stand with him based upon the facts and truth. I think the last thing any of us want to do is assert a defense, both online and in casual conversations with family members and friends, that isn't close to accurate or true.
I was forced to read the articles provided, which presented me with a clear understanding required of commissioned officers; regardless of not in uniform, he/she never gains civilian status, unless resigned from the Air Force or Military. In other words weither true or false in citing the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution, apparently Article 88 supersedes. However, with an empathic response to the laws governing "rules of engagement" could inspired this 17 years active high-ranked officer to publicly express his concern; notwithstanding, he maybe charged for uniform violation. Nevertheless, like yourself, I'm hoping that there is a preliminary trial should they consider court martial. I do hope that the commanders responsible for discipline would consider his rank, and years of service in thoroughly reviewing the conditions which propelled him into this risk.🙏
NB. Not that it matters, but as president, in his first term, Trump's intervened into Navy Seal Edward Gallager who was court-martialed, restoring him along with his previous rank.
That's good to hear. I wish him no ill will and nothing but success. The point of this post was to remind everyone that facts matter and doing our due diligence on what we read on social media matters. For the most part, this case isn't anything like what's being shared in short social media posts.
I have no doubt that trump himself is behind the scenes in pushing this situation.
I get the point that as a soldier takes the oath to support and defend the Constitution, and to obey the orders of the officers appointed over him. Nothing in that oath, or even in the code of military regulations, requires any soldier to sacrifice his conscience. It is clear that Major Watson followed his conscience, and I understand that his stance will cost him dearly; yet, he has a conscience, and it makes me wonder how many of his fellow officers in all branches of the service have abandoned theirs, all for the so-called 'commander-in-chief' who has never had a conscience in the first place.
I totally get where you're coming from, Rock. The reason my team and I researched and shared this post is because what's being reported as fact by too many respected reporters and journalists fails to report what actually happened. What I try to do here on my Substack is always pull back the curtain and share the facts, and yes, sometimes along with my opinion, as to breaking political news stories. Our actions have consequences, whether we're in the military or not, and I simply wanted to share the facts in an objective way. I'll be doing this with a new and different story once a month at the end of the month, because I want to remind the community to always do its due diligence in how they read and interpret social media posts and reported news. I I appreciate your comment.
I had wondered about whether “truth” mattered in “contemptuous” as it does in libel or slander. Also whether a demand to” impeach, convict, remove” a president is necessarily “partisan” ( in many cases, as the present, the next president would be of the same party.).
I need to read this a few more times but I love the general approach ( arguing a point widely viewed one way) and this one in particular led me to upgrade to paid.
I truly appreciate your thoughts and comments, Barbara. Welcome to the inside and I hope you grab your complimentary PDF copy of my book, Privacy in America. See https://mitchthelawyer.substack.com/perks
My thoughts are that now, more than ever, it's important that everyone do their due diligence when relying upon what they see on their computer, on their phone, and on the television. Reporting facts that by their very nature, "upset and motivate the reader" is one thing. Misreporting facts to inflame the reader is another thing that needs to be called out. In addition to my usual content here on the platform, I'll be presenting a counter-argument at least once a month on breaking political news stories that many are getting wrong. Just like I would in trial with a judge and jury. Enjoy the rest of your day!
I wish him the best too, Cornelia. Unfortunately, there is a lot more to the story than what some very well-respected reporters and journalists are reporting. I thought it would be a good idea to pull back the curtain and share all the facts, both good and bad.
Thank you for doing so. Here too. As I try to do each and every day in court, during interviews, with my support of groups like the ACLU, and here on Substack. But when we do support a person or cause, it's important to know the facts. Anyone reading this new post will be armed with all the information so if they decide to advocate on Air Force Major Watson's behalf, they can do so with all the facts. Being informed is power. Being misled is an opportunity to lose credibility and be painted into the wrong corner.
So it's OK for the president to make illegal orders, including murder, but it's not OK for a soldier to follow his conscience? You've convinced me of nothing.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I simply shared a post disclosing what the facts are. Of course, it's not okay for Trump to make illegal orders. That's not what the post is about. The post is about sharing the full story so that when we advocate for someone or something, we know all the facts. If you came into court with your comment on behalf of Watson, you'd lose 10 out of 10 times. He's be found guilty by every jury in the country. It literally has nothing to do with the charges that are being brought against him. And that's the point of my post. I'm extremely vocal against Trump, his administration, and all of those who enable him. Don't confuse my objectivity on this story with my passion for seeing Trump leave office in disgrace. At the same time, I am not going to simply look the other way when a massive amount of misinformation is being shared on social to persuade rather than to inform. It's not OK.
I see I missed the point of your post. It appeared to me that Watson was prepared to accept the consequences of his actions. Legal redress according to the letter of the law would be the logical approach he seems to have taken rather than relying on trying the case in social media with selective information. Anyway, the courts, both military and civilian rarely heed public outcry. His protest was public but his prosecution is personal.
It seems to me a vile exchange for our service members to make in serving and possibly dying for our country while giving up their First Amendment rights.
It's an interesting issue indeed, Susan. But here's the thing, look at what he's being charged with (all detailed in the post). That's the point of my story. It's not about his First Amendment rights and that kind of reporting by reporters and journalist is misleading everyday Americans. Look, I wish nothing but the best for Watson but speaking of the First Amendment since you brought it up, as I mention in the post, the First Amendment, law is clear, and has been for decades, that service members do not carry the civilian First Amendment protection you and I carry, and that is settled ground. It’s been worked out over years of Supreme Court cases like Parker v. Levy, Brown v. Glines, and Goldman v. Weinberger, which treat discipline inside the ranks as something this country needs more than it needs the freedom of one officer in uniform to say whatever he wants on a national stage.
It seems the height of hypocrisy to expect military members to give up their First Amendment, I don't care how "that it is settled ground." The Constitution is supposedly settled ground and yet the President and GOP violate it daily with no consequences.
I understand your argument, I do. My retort is times have changed, and we can't fight fascists with laws that have already been nullified by them.
Watson is a brave man and has my admiration. But from what you've written he broke the law in acts of civil disobedience and the charges seem merited. I hope he gets off easy and the next Democratic President should pardon him.
Thank you Mitch for explaining this. Your detailed analysis did indeed shed light on this case that made me re-think all I had read so far.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate you aharing the full version of this story. You pointing out the laws
and why the major was arrested and charged helps to diffuse the public's default sense of unconstitutionality or partisan antics.
An example of a formal letter to representatives:
Soldier Jailed for Words Is a Warning Every Senator Must Heed
Dear Sen Schiff,
I write as your constituent to demand congressional action in defense of Air Force Maj. Jason Watson, an active-duty officer now facing court-martial — including three specifications under Article 88 of the UCMJ for "contemptuous" statements about President Trump.
Watson's alleged offense was public dissent. In July, he stood on the Capitol steps calling for the President's impeachment, accompanied by a sitting Member of Congress, Rep. Al Green of Texas — precisely the lawful accompaniment Capitol Police require for such demonstrations. He was later charged criminally for that protest, for a Substack interview, and for a CNN appearance, and he remains in pre-trial confinement.
Read that again: a 17-year Air Force veteran is being prosecuted for calling for impeachment through Congress, in the presence of a Member of Congress, while unarmed and nonviolent. His attorney says he may be the first major in military history charged under Article 88.
When a Commander-in-Chief responds to criticism from the ranks by jailing service members rather than answering the substance of their concerns, he is not exercising presidential authority — he is exercising the authority of a dictator. The chilling effect on every uniformed service member who might question unlawful orders or unconstitutional conduct is immediate and severe.
I am asking you to:
1. Publicly demand the Air Force release Maj. Watson from pre-trial confinement pending trial;
2. Open oversight hearings into the use of Article 88 to prosecute political speech which is *not* explicitly worded in the article; and
3. Introduce or support legislation clarifying that Article 88 cannot be weaponized to criminalize calls for constitutional accountability made through lawful channels.
Congress cannot stand by while a service member is imprisoned for defending the Constitution he swore to protect. I expect a response outlining the concrete steps you will take.
Respectfully,
This is a very good analysis! TY, @MitchJackson!
I'll be doing this once a month, just like I would with facts before a jury. In this case, I'm not rendering any type of judgment against Watson. I'm simply trying to clarify the story and social media posts everyone seems to be sharing.
Yes, I detect that analysis!
If there is a valid reason that the Uniform Code of Military Justice applies to Maj. Jason Watson, for stating the obvious, then it applies to Trump and Kegseth as well.
Absolutely.
They're civilian leaders. Are they subject to the UCMJ?
Good question. If Kegseth ever served in the military, he would. At present time, or as things are interpreted now, Trump is not under UCMJ even as commander “in chief” but as an unworthy leader, someone not to follow, if his policies cause military personnel to violate their oath and actual duties, they will be.
Kegseth was in the National Guard so he is subject to the USCMJ. I didn't realize that it would still apply to former service members.
Thank you for telling us the whole story, so far. I actually heard about this on the news rather than social media, but it was the same information.
That's what I'm trying to do here on my Substack. So much happening each and every day, just like Trump's executive order not too long ago renaming Lake Ontario to Lake America. I just shared a new note about that. It's crazy.
We are all very grateful for your dedication to Truth and correctness. Maj. Jason Watson, who is standing forth for correctness; this takes courage and dedication to stand forth for the example to all. The JAG members have been replaced; do not know who those are who will hear Maj. Jason Watson's story; the military members are themselves under attack, as we have read. This Maj. will find justice in the end; We stand with him.
Of course we do, but we stand with him based upon the facts and truth. I think the last thing any of us want to do is assert a defense, both online and in casual conversations with family members and friends, that isn't close to accurate or true.
I was forced to read the articles provided, which presented me with a clear understanding required of commissioned officers; regardless of not in uniform, he/she never gains civilian status, unless resigned from the Air Force or Military. In other words weither true or false in citing the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution, apparently Article 88 supersedes. However, with an empathic response to the laws governing "rules of engagement" could inspired this 17 years active high-ranked officer to publicly express his concern; notwithstanding, he maybe charged for uniform violation. Nevertheless, like yourself, I'm hoping that there is a preliminary trial should they consider court martial. I do hope that the commanders responsible for discipline would consider his rank, and years of service in thoroughly reviewing the conditions which propelled him into this risk.🙏
NB. Not that it matters, but as president, in his first term, Trump's intervened into Navy Seal Edward Gallager who was court-martialed, restoring him along with his previous rank.
There are a couple of fundraisers for Major Watson.
That's good to hear. I wish him no ill will and nothing but success. The point of this post was to remind everyone that facts matter and doing our due diligence on what we read on social media matters. For the most part, this case isn't anything like what's being shared in short social media posts.
Yes but he will need legal support with the behemoth he is facing, won't he? This regime does not tread lightly or morally.
I have no doubt that trump himself is behind the scenes in pushing this situation.
I get the point that as a soldier takes the oath to support and defend the Constitution, and to obey the orders of the officers appointed over him. Nothing in that oath, or even in the code of military regulations, requires any soldier to sacrifice his conscience. It is clear that Major Watson followed his conscience, and I understand that his stance will cost him dearly; yet, he has a conscience, and it makes me wonder how many of his fellow officers in all branches of the service have abandoned theirs, all for the so-called 'commander-in-chief' who has never had a conscience in the first place.
I totally get where you're coming from, Rock. The reason my team and I researched and shared this post is because what's being reported as fact by too many respected reporters and journalists fails to report what actually happened. What I try to do here on my Substack is always pull back the curtain and share the facts, and yes, sometimes along with my opinion, as to breaking political news stories. Our actions have consequences, whether we're in the military or not, and I simply wanted to share the facts in an objective way. I'll be doing this with a new and different story once a month at the end of the month, because I want to remind the community to always do its due diligence in how they read and interpret social media posts and reported news. I I appreciate your comment.
I had wondered about whether “truth” mattered in “contemptuous” as it does in libel or slander. Also whether a demand to” impeach, convict, remove” a president is necessarily “partisan” ( in many cases, as the present, the next president would be of the same party.).
I need to read this a few more times but I love the general approach ( arguing a point widely viewed one way) and this one in particular led me to upgrade to paid.
I truly appreciate your thoughts and comments, Barbara. Welcome to the inside and I hope you grab your complimentary PDF copy of my book, Privacy in America. See https://mitchthelawyer.substack.com/perks
My thoughts are that now, more than ever, it's important that everyone do their due diligence when relying upon what they see on their computer, on their phone, and on the television. Reporting facts that by their very nature, "upset and motivate the reader" is one thing. Misreporting facts to inflame the reader is another thing that needs to be called out. In addition to my usual content here on the platform, I'll be presenting a counter-argument at least once a month on breaking political news stories that many are getting wrong. Just like I would in trial with a judge and jury. Enjoy the rest of your day!
Thank you Mitch. Interesting article! I wish Major Watson the best. He deserves our support.
I wish him the best too, Cornelia. Unfortunately, there is a lot more to the story than what some very well-respected reporters and journalists are reporting. I thought it would be a good idea to pull back the curtain and share all the facts, both good and bad.
Absolutely. Thank you.
Thank you for doing so. Here too. As I try to do each and every day in court, during interviews, with my support of groups like the ACLU, and here on Substack. But when we do support a person or cause, it's important to know the facts. Anyone reading this new post will be armed with all the information so if they decide to advocate on Air Force Major Watson's behalf, they can do so with all the facts. Being informed is power. Being misled is an opportunity to lose credibility and be painted into the wrong corner.
So it's OK for the president to make illegal orders, including murder, but it's not OK for a soldier to follow his conscience? You've convinced me of nothing.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I simply shared a post disclosing what the facts are. Of course, it's not okay for Trump to make illegal orders. That's not what the post is about. The post is about sharing the full story so that when we advocate for someone or something, we know all the facts. If you came into court with your comment on behalf of Watson, you'd lose 10 out of 10 times. He's be found guilty by every jury in the country. It literally has nothing to do with the charges that are being brought against him. And that's the point of my post. I'm extremely vocal against Trump, his administration, and all of those who enable him. Don't confuse my objectivity on this story with my passion for seeing Trump leave office in disgrace. At the same time, I am not going to simply look the other way when a massive amount of misinformation is being shared on social to persuade rather than to inform. It's not OK.
I see I missed the point of your post. It appeared to me that Watson was prepared to accept the consequences of his actions. Legal redress according to the letter of the law would be the logical approach he seems to have taken rather than relying on trying the case in social media with selective information. Anyway, the courts, both military and civilian rarely heed public outcry. His protest was public but his prosecution is personal.
It seems to me a vile exchange for our service members to make in serving and possibly dying for our country while giving up their First Amendment rights.
It's an interesting issue indeed, Susan. But here's the thing, look at what he's being charged with (all detailed in the post). That's the point of my story. It's not about his First Amendment rights and that kind of reporting by reporters and journalist is misleading everyday Americans. Look, I wish nothing but the best for Watson but speaking of the First Amendment since you brought it up, as I mention in the post, the First Amendment, law is clear, and has been for decades, that service members do not carry the civilian First Amendment protection you and I carry, and that is settled ground. It’s been worked out over years of Supreme Court cases like Parker v. Levy, Brown v. Glines, and Goldman v. Weinberger, which treat discipline inside the ranks as something this country needs more than it needs the freedom of one officer in uniform to say whatever he wants on a national stage.
It seems the height of hypocrisy to expect military members to give up their First Amendment, I don't care how "that it is settled ground." The Constitution is supposedly settled ground and yet the President and GOP violate it daily with no consequences.
I understand your argument, I do. My retort is times have changed, and we can't fight fascists with laws that have already been nullified by them.