CNN correspondents on Friday’s The Situation Room came to a strange head when the topic of the mid-1940s Nuremberg Trials was brought up in light of the recent controversy concerning “unlawful orders.” On Tuesday, a handful of Democratic Congressmen posted a video telling U.S. military and intelligence members to defy illegal commands, to which Trump retorted with a reminder of the punishment for sedition: death. After reporting White House reactions to the back-and-forth, CNN White House reporter Alayna Treene mentioned a point some on the right have made regarding those Democrats’ video: “The fact that the lawmakers who shared this video or were part of this video did not give any examples of any illegal orders that perhaps the military had received or would receive.” Perhaps they feared a legal battle if they accused Trump of issuing or U.S. military members of following specific “unlawful orders.” Or, more likely, they knew they’re full of it. Treene then finished by reminding of audience of the Nuremberg Trials. You know, that somehow totally comparable event that occurred 80 years ago: But I do want to be clear, we know that the law states that service members should not be obeying illegal orders and to do so would actually open them up to prosecution. I'd remind you of the Nuremberg Trials. And so this is gonna be very messy.     Rounding up illegal immigrants with lawful deportation orders was not a war crime. Prosecuting violent aliens who damaged Americans’ quality of life was completely legal. Where did Treene get the idea that she should share this? Situation Room co-host Wolf Blitzer added on to Treene’s ridiculous comparison with a faulty history lesson: … I was just going to say at Nuremberg, the Nazi generals and other senior military officers simply said they were obeying orders from the top. But those orders were illegal, and as a result, they paid the price for those illegal orders. Well, no, actually. Technically, the orders carried out by Nazi militarists were legal under German law at the time. The Third Reich’s living perpetrators, who carried out genocides and conquests, were prosecuted by an International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg because their actions were sheer evil. Blitzer gave a veiled defense of the Democrats’ joint statement with the appearance of an explanation: “The Democrats were not saying, you know, to go ahead and disobey legal orders. They were saying disobey illegal orders or something that goes against the Constitution.” Yes. And grass is green and the sky is blue. What else is new? The video clearly wasn’t a pure and innocent PSA. Those Democrats intended to stir mutinous thoughts amongst U.S. service members because they didn’t like how the Trump administration had utilized the military as of late. The transcript is below. Click "expand" read: CNN’s The Situation Room November 21, 2025 10:04:10 a.m. EST WOLF BLITZER: Looking forward to that interview. I want to go live right now to CNN's Alayna Treene, she's over at the White House, and CNN's Arlette Saenz, she's up on Capitol Hill. Alayna, let me go to you first. What is the Trump administration saying right now about this? ALAYNA TREENE: Well, there's a few points to make, Wolf and Pamela. One is that they — a lot of them were outraged by that video that you just played of these Democratic lawmakers, six of them, all of whom either served in the military or in the U.S. intelligence community. They essentially were arguing that they were trying to encourage troops to rebel against the commander-in-chief. However, once the President started posting, particularly that post about claiming that they were engaging in seditious behavior and that that's punishable by death, that's when a lot of Republicans started agreeing with Democrats that this went too far. Now, the White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, addressed this yesterday and she also denied that the post meant that the President was essentially calling on lawmakers to be executed. [Cuts to clip] NANCY CORDES [on 11/20/25]: Just to be clear, does the President want to execute members of Congress? PRESS SEC. KAROLINE LEAVITT [on 11/20/25]: No. [Transition] You have sitting members of the United States Congress who conspired to together to orchestrate a video messaged to members of the United States military, to active duty service members, to members of the national security apparatus, encouraging them to defy the President's lawful orders. [Cuts back to live] TREENE: There's a few things as well, Wolf and Pamela, that I've been hearing in some of my conversations with people in that building behind me. The fact that the lawmakers who shared this video or were part of this video did not give any examples of any illegal orders that perhaps the military had received or would receive. I also want to point you to what we heard from the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche. He said that the Justice Department was going to be opening a formal investigation to look into all of this. But I do want to be clear, we know that the law states that service members should not be obeying illegal orders and to do so would actually open them up to prosecution. I'd remind you of the Nuremberg Trials. And so this is gonna be very messy. There's a chance we will hear from the President today addressing this. A lot of people very eager to know what exactly he meant with these posts. BROWN: All right. So, let's bring in — oh, go ahead, Wolf. BLITZER: No, I was just going to say at Nuremberg, the Nazi generals and other senior military officers simply said they were obeying orders from the top. But those orders were illegal, and as a result, they paid the price for those illegal orders. The Democrats were not saying, you know, to go ahead and disobey legal orders. They were saying disobey illegal orders or something that goes against the Constitution.