“Right? That’s what she said?”
__
Well, that’s a little closer. I believe that what she said was, essentially, if your commanding officer gives you an order, and it’s not an order to commit an explicitly illegal act, you have to obey it, regardless of who the President is.
The question was not whether he had to obey it. The question was whether the order was LAWFUL.
And she said that the eligibility of the President who approved the combat operations was irrelevant to the lawfulness of the orders. IOW, even if it was an ineligible POTUS (like, say, Joseph Stalin) who ordered combat operations (on, say, Iran), all the smaller orders to carry that out would be lawful.
So what she effectively said was that as long as Joseph Stalin took an oath to become POTUS, he can order combat operations and all the orders to carry out that operation are lawful. There is nothing in our Constitution, laws, or military codes that would put ANY OBSTACLE in the way of Joseph Stalin using the chain of command to do whatever combat operations he desires - even if everybody in the military knew he was ineligible and a foreign enemy combatant. If the military had evidence that a foreign enemy combatant was in the White House their only response could ever be to roll over and say, “So what? That’s totally irrelevant to what we do.”
Right? That’s what she said?