By Joe Plenzler, Meidas Defense
Guest: Cody Harnish (Military Defense Attorney, @UCMJattorney)
Collaborator: @ValorMeidaNetwork
Host: Joe Plenzler
Release Date: October 10, 2026
Episode Overview
In this episode, host Joe Plenzler sits down with military defense attorney Cody Harnish to break down the legal and constitutional firestorm surrounding Air Force Major Jason Watson. Fresh off flying cross-country to attend Major Watson’s Article 32 preliminary hearing at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, Harnish provides an insider’s view into the proceedings.
On July 1, 2026, Major Watson staged a protest on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, calling for the impeachment, conviction, and removal of President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance over the constitutionality of operations in Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran. The conversation explores the rare UCMJ Article 88 “contemptuous words” charges against an active-duty officer, procedural breakdowns in pretrial confinement, the law of armed conflict regarding controversial strikes, and the growing crisis of public trust in military leadership.
Key Discussion Points & Takeaways
1. The Major Jason Watson Case & Article 32 Hearing
Background: Major Jason Watson, an active-duty Air Force officer, was arrested after giving a speech on the Capitol steps calling for the impeachment and removal of President Trump and Vice President JD Vance over military actions in Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba.
Pretrial Treatment Anomalies: Despite presenting no flight risk or threat of violence, Watson was held in pretrial confinement, brought into the courthouse handcuffed in a t-shirt, and denied access to a proper military uniform or his personal belongings. Harnish notes this raises serious concerns regarding unlawful pretrial punishment under Article 13.
Unusual Hearing Dynamics: While standard Article 32 preliminary hearings last 45–60 minutes, Watson’s hearing stretched over five hours. It featured lengthy testimony regarding his uniform availability and his unsworn statement emphasizing his allegiance to the U.S. Constitution over any political party.
Fast-Tracked Resignation Denial: Watson submitted a Resignation in Lieu of Court-Martial (RILO). It was denied within 24 hours—an unprecedented speed for secretariat-level processing that suggests potential unlawful command influence or a deliberate push to prosecute publicly.
2. Article 88 (Contemptuous Words) vs. Free Speech
Historic Precedent: Article 88 makes it illegal for military officers to use contemptuous words against political leaders. Harnish points out that there are only three modern UCMJ cases under Article 88: Lt. Howe (1965/1967), Lt. Col. Scheller (2021), and now Major Watson. Of note, Scheller pleaded guilty to six violations of military law that include contempt toward officials, disrespect toward superior commissioned officers, failure to obey order or regulation and conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. Scheller now works for Pete Hegseth and the Trump administration.
Contempt vs. Legal Criticism: Under military law, officers are permitted to offer emphatic criticism, provided it remains focused on constitutional processes rather than personal or mean-spirited attacks. Harnish highlights that Watson’s speech was structured around conditional “if-then” statements citing constitutional remedies.
Flawed Charging Sheets: The prosecution’s charge sheet misquoted Watson by truncating his full sentences to remove the legal context of his conditional statements. Additionally, the preliminary hearing officer found no probable cause for charges alleging participation in a partisan political gathering.
3. Law of Armed Conflict, Drug Interdictions, and Accountabilities
Legal Standard for Maritime Strikes: Harnish addresses the legal illegality of strikes against maritime targets labeled as “narco-terrorists”. Because the U.S. is not in a non-international armed conflict with drug cartels, lethal strikes outside law enforcement protocols constitute murder under federal law rather than a war crime.
Historical Law Enforcement Standards: Traditionally, drug interdictions utilize Coast Guard law enforcement detachments (LEDETs) aboard Navy vessels to seize evidence, arrest suspects, and preserve the rule of law.
The Role of Judge Advocates: While Staff Judge Advocates (SJAs) provide legal advice to commanders during targeting boards, final operational decisions rest with commanders. Harnish notes a culture of fear among military legal counsel, where those who push back risk removal or retaliation.
4. Solutions and Restoring Public Trust
Constitutional & Structural Reforms: Harnish suggests that addressing executive overreach requires explicit constitutional sideboards to restore checks and balances between the executive branch and Congress.
Civic Action & Local Connection: To effect real change, citizens should focus their attention on key issues, engage directly with local elected officials, and build center-out community coalitions to defend democratic institutions.
Notable Quotes
“When given an order that a reasonable person would know is patently unlawful, they have the duty to disobey that order. That’s the law... That’s where your morals, your ethics, your beliefs have to come into play.”
— Cody Harnish
“Decades of goodwill, decades of honorable service... The American public reveres our military because of the hard work and honorable service our military has done. That is eroding very quickly.”
— Cody Harnish
“When people get tired of the division and they get tired of the dysfunction... it’s amazing what people can do when they come to the center and work for the common good.”
— Joe Plenzler
Guest Information & Resources
Guest: Cody Harnish, Military Defense Attorney
Social Media: @UCMJattorney (TikTok, X, Instagram)
Legal Practice: www.harnish.law
