A full meltdown ensued on MS NOW following President Trump’s press conference on the Iran War and heroic rescue of a U.S. airman as Katy Tur Reports with guest-host Antonia Hylton turned into full war-crime mode. One guest, former JAG officer Margaret Donovan, claimed Trump would order the military to kill every Iranian civilian after he set a deadline for 8 p.m. Tuesday for the Iranian political bureau to make a deal. Hylton, normally the host of The Weekend: Primetime on MS NOW, spent the aftermath of the press conference with questions almost exclusively about potential war crimes to all her guests. She then posed a question to Donovan which asked “how is this supposed to work?” in terms of selecting targets.   MS NOW suggests when Trump says we're going to take out all of Iran in a single night, he literally means destroy every inch and kill all the civilians and tells service members not to follow orders: "When you make statements like, 'we're going to take out the entire country in… pic.twitter.com/hbz5UuzLYT — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 6, 2026   Donovan first stated that in “certain circumstances” some targets were “legally targetable.” But after giving her factual analysis, she called the president “incoherent” and claimed the military would now try to figure out how to legally hit targets set out by the president because, of course, the military takes their direct orders from mid-day press conferences. Donovan then took the President very literally and suggested the president was going to order the military to “take out the entire country in a single night” as in killing every person, civilian or not: When you make statements like, ‘we're going to take out the entire country in a single night’, that's a per se war crime. And if that is the commander-in-chief ordering his commanders underneath him in the chain of command to do that, they should understand that that is a blatantly unlawful order. And a lot of what he has said today would constitute a blatantly unlawful order that they would be obliged not to follow. So you're right, they can be targetable in the circumstances that the president has laid out. She doubled down on her unhinged comments a few minutes later.   Truly insane claims. Former JAG Corps Captain Margaret Donovan claims the U.S. is "going to engage in basically indiscriminate killing tomorrow of Iranian civilians." pic.twitter.com/voLh4FQIni — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 6, 2026   Hylton compared the U.S. to global villains like Russia and China and asked: “What happens to us if on the world stage, we get the reputation, the kind of reputation that China and Russia have, that we just violate norms, we cannot be trusted. What happens to us?” Donovan’s response claimed everyone in Iran was going to die: It's a pretty terrifying thought because if we are going to engage in basically indiscriminate killing tomorrow of Iranian civilians or structures that are going to wreak havoc on the civilian population there for an indefinite period, right? There's no plan to rebuild any of this. She then proclaimed international law before she said the hypothetical “intrinsic horror” would break U.S. law and tear our alliances: So, I think that it would be just a complete game change in how the United States is viewed. And, you know, apart from sort of the intrinsic horror that will happen on innocent civilians based on what the president is threatening here, we also stand to lose extremely valuable international alliances because no country is going to trust us, even for agreements that have been signed and ratified by our own domestic legal apparatus. It’s not a surprise that a frequent guest of The Bulwark would be his unhinged, but there might need to be a check on someone who felt the military would wanton kill all civilians. Also, they, most definitely, should not be an “expert” on cable news, but that’s just what the network wanted. The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s Katy Tur Reports April 6, 2026 3:08:29 PM Eastern (...) MARGARET DONOVAN (FMR. JAG CORPS CAPTAIN): Sure. So that's exactly right, that at times, civilian infrastructure, bridges, even power plants, in certain circumstances could be legally targetable. But we see these types of targets get engaged after significant analysis and a really formal determination that it is going to offer some type of military advantage.  And so the president's statements, which I agree with with Max and Sam's concerns here, these are the statements of basically an incoherent commander-in-chief. And so now you have commanders down the chain of command trying to figure out how to lawfully engage these targets. And the plan that the president has laid out in that press conference of simply claiming every power plant in the country, every bridge in the country is targetable. That just does not pass any relevant tests that you would be looking at in order to properly engage those targets.  He had another line in the conference about something. I think the entire country could be taken out in a single night. A lot of scholars in this area have been a little bit hesitant to just outright say that taking out a bridge is a war crime, taking out a power plant is a war crime. Because, as I just explained, that isn't always the case. There could be circumstances where they can be legally targetable.  When you make statements like, ‘we're going to take out the entire country in a single night’, that's a per se war crime. And if that is the commander-in-chief ordering his commanders underneath him in the chain of command to do that, they should understand that that is a blatantly unlawful order. And a lot of what he has said today would constitute a blatantly unlawful order that they would be obliged not to follow. So you're right, they can be targetable in the circumstances that the president has laid out. ANTONIA HYLTON (GUEST HOST): So, Max, if you are one of the service members who may be called to be engaged in some of this tomorrow night, what should you do? You know, I understand that the president can pardon people. Certainly, people have already floated the possibility Hegseth may need one by the time this is all said and done. But if you are down the chain of command and the president doesn't know who you are, but you are across this, what risk are you facing being engaged? MAX ROSE: Look, this should not fall on them, Low-level service members, who are directly on the front lines. They have to worry about not only their own lives, but the lives of those they have been entrusted with protecting and leading. But this should certainly fall on, one, the highest level generals who are just standing by and letting this pass.  Think about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, whose constitutional job - his obligation, right. The job that he swore an oath to do is to provide unvarnished military guidance about risks. Where was his voice when it came time to the Commander-in-Chief establishing regime change as an objective and basically, for all intents and purposes, saying, we're going to win the Super Bowl, but not bring a quarterback on to the field, not matching strategic goals with operational resources. Where was he?  Where was the Republican members of Congress, particularly the Republican veterans who have just stood by and been fully owned subsidiaries of Donald Trump and MAGA Inc., and not kept in mind the oath that they swore to the Constitution as elected officials and previously as service members themselves. Where are they? They all ran for office saying they put the country first. Those are the folks that I'm thinking about. We should all stand behind the people on the front lines, and they shouldn't think that they're going to go to court over this. (...) 3:13:55 PM Eastern HYLTON: Margaret, I want to ask you a sort of 30,000-foot view, bigger picture question here. What happens to us if on the world stage, we get the reputation, the kind of reputation that China and Russia have, that we just violate norms, we cannot be trusted. What happens to us? DONOVAN: It's a pretty terrifying thought because if we are going to engage in basically indiscriminate killing tomorrow of Iranian civilians or structures that are going to wreak havoc on the civilian population there for an indefinite period, right? There's no plan to rebuild any of this.  You're just talking about blasting them back to the so-called ‘stone ages’ indefinitely. That is a real sea change. That is a game changer of how the United States conducts warfare. And it would be basically ripping up international agreements, which, by the way, we are bound by the Geneva Conventions, NATO, the UN Charter, those have been signed and ratified by Congress, okay? So they are not optional. They are basically tantamount to domestic law. And the Constitution under the supremacy clause treats them the same way.  So, I think that it would be just a complete game change in how the United States is viewed. And, you know, apart from sort of the intrinsic horror that will happen on innocent civilians based on what the president is threatening here, we also stand to lose extremely valuable international alliances because no country is going to trust us, even for agreements that have been signed and ratified by our own domestic legal apparatus. Nor would they ever want to be fighting alongside us if we also cannot commit to following the law of armed conflict. So, I think it would be internationally sort of catastrophic to the United States standing. (...)