Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA analyst, was featured along with five other Democrat lawmakers in a video last week urging the military to "refuse illegal orders" from the Trump administration.Neither Slotkin nor the other Democrats bothered identifying in the video precisely which orders were illegal. They did, however, insinuate that the administration posed a general threat to the U.S. Constitution.'To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal.'After the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces took issue with the apparent call for rebellion and identified those responsible as "traitors," the six Democrats began painting themselves as victims. In the process of attempting to shift attention from her action to the president's reaction, Slotkin made a telling admission that casts the controversial video in a whole new light — namely that she couldn't identify a single "illegal order" from the Trump administration warranting refusal.The president took notice when Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck explained why this was a "BIG DEAL." Crying victimPresident Donald Trump characterized the apparent call for rebellion as "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL" and noted in a Truth Social post on Saturday that "MANY GREAT LEGAL SCHOLARS AGREE THAT THE DEMOCRAT TRAITORS THAT TOLD THE MILITARY TO DISOBEY MY ORDERS, AS PRESIDENT, HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME OF SERIOUS PROPORTION!"'There is now increased threats against us.'In the wake of Trump's rumblings about possible sedition, the Democrats in the video went on the defensive, reading a similar script.Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said, "Donald Trump is threatening me with arrest and execution because I'm upholding my oath to the Constitution and standing with our troops," and suggested that the controversy boiled down to a political disagreement.Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) similarly suggested that Trump's response — not his and the other Democrats' apparent call for rebellion — was cause for concern, claiming, "Because of what he says, there is now increased threats against us." "He should understand that his words have, you know, could have serious, serious consequences," Kelly told CBS News' "Face the Nation," adding that the president's response to potentially seditious implorations was at odds with Republicans' criticism of violent rhetoric in the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination.RELATED: 'SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR': Trump demands arrest of 'traitor' Democrat congressmen for 'dangerous' video Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty ImagePennsylvania Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, another Democrat featured in the video, echoed the same talking points and claimed that Trump's response "reveals far more about his authoritarian instincts than it does about anything that we said. In fact, he made our case for us."Slotkin once again joined the chorus, suggesting in a video statement that Trump "threatened" her and the others with the textbook consequences for sedition "because he didn't agree with a video we put out."Telling admissionThe Michigan Democrat went farther in her Sunday interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC's "This Week," suggesting that Trump was "trying to get us to shut up because he doesn't want to be talking about this," said Slotkin.'Couldn't you have done a video saying just what you just said?'Silence may have been to Slotkin's benefit, because she ended up admitting that she issued the call to disobedience without being able to identify a single illegal order handed down by the administration. — (@) "There is such things as illegal orders. That's why it's in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, going back to Nuremberg, right? And it's just a — it's a totally benign statement," said Slotkin. "And if the president is concerned about it, then he should stay deeply within the law."When Raddatz asked whether Trump had issued any illegal orders, the Michigan Democrat said, "To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related to Venezuela.""So it was basically a warning to say, like, if you're asked to do something, particularly against American citizens, you have the ability to go to your JAG officer and push back," Slotkin said later in the interview.Raddatz pressed the issue, asking, "Couldn't you have done a video saying just what you just said? 'If you are asked to do something, if you are worried about whether it is legal or not, you can do this.'"The host noted that the video as-is "does imply that the president is having illegal orders, which you have not seen."The Michigan Democrat wasn't the only individual featured in the video who proved unable in recent days to name a single illegal order issued by the administration.When asked flatly on MSNOW which orders she was telling troops to refuse, Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.) couldn't name one.When pressed again on CNN whether she or any of the other Democrats in the video have heard tell of illegal orders from service members or the broader national security community, Goodlander tried talking around the question, alluding only to certain service members' alleged "concerns" about the legality of certain orders.'BIG DEAL'On Sunday, Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck flagged Slotkin's admission and noted, "Democrats just told our military not to follow 'unconstitutional orders' — while admitting none exist. WHY IS THIS A BIG DEAL? They knew and know, that the message wasn't for our soldiers … it was for the Global leadership.""If a video like this were aimed at Putin's military, we'd assume Russia was unstable or nearing a coup," continued Beck. "They didn't give good advice, nor weaken Trump. They weakened America — signaling doubt to allies and opportunity to enemies. They are tilling the soil color revolution. Reckless beyond words."In the post, which President Trump promptly shared on social media without comment, Beck noted that the alleged offense in question is "not treason but a very serious crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2387." Trump also shared Beck's elaboration on 18 U.S.C. § 2387, in which he noted it is a federal crime to advise, urge, or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty among members of the U.S. military with the intent to interfere with American military operations. — (@) Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!