Lawyers for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the most famous US Army deserter since Sgt. Eddie Slovik went before a firing squad in January 1945, are having a sad about Donald Trump.

Trump says Taliban turncoat Bergdahl, now awaiting a general court-martial after walking away from an Afghanistan outpost in 2009, should face a firing squad of his own. The lawyers say Trump’s polluting the jury pool for Bergdahl’s court-martial, and they want to talk to the GOP presidential front-runner about it.

Both are blowing hard.

Trump, for votes: Surely he knows the Army doesn’t execute military deserters — Slovik being the sole exception in the past century.

The lawyers, for tactical reasons: They know Bergdahl’s jurors will be serving officers in an Army that has so far proceeded with honor in this dismal affair — defying Obama administration ideologues along the way — and are thus unlikely to be influenced by anything The Donald has to say.

For the Army, it’s all about honor — which, along with tradition, dedication to duty and courage, is what separates professional soldiery from an armed mob.

Bergdahl’s lawyers may or may not get this, but it really doesn’t matter. They’re trying to spring a supremely guilty client, which is their job, so it’s expected that they’ll clutch at straws.

But Trump appears not to get it at all — which is problematic, because a year from today, he could be president.

More about this stunning prospect below.

Bergdahl is charged with desertion, which is bad enough, but also misconduct before the enemy; a guilty verdict on that count could put him away for life.

He spent five years with the Taliban before the Obama administration exchanged him for five top terrorists, then behind the wire at Guantanamo Bay.

The Taliban definitely got the better of the deal — a sad fact underscored by the Obama administration’s profound dishonesty regarding Bergdahl. Not only did the White House lie to Congress about its negotiations with the Taliban for his release, National Security Adviser Susan Rice had this to say when he was sprung:

“[Bergdahl] was an American prisoner of war, taken on the battlefield,” she lied, adding: “He served the United States with honor and distinction.”

Not exactly, according to soldiers Bergdahl actually served with: “He walked off — and ‘walked off’ is a nice way to put it,” said Josh Cornelison, the medic in Bergdahl’s platoon.

“He put thousands of people in danger,” said platoon mate Cody Full — referring to the massive effort to recover Bergdahl when he went missing. “He was a deserter. There’s no question in the minds of anyone in our platoon.”

Neither is there a question in the mind of Donald Trump.

“We’re tired of Sgt. Bergdahl, who’s a traitor, a no-good traitor, who should have been executed,” Trump declared in Las Vegas last month. “Thirty years ago, he would have been shot.”

No, Bergdahl wouldn’t have been shot 30 years ago. (See above, Pvt. Eddie Slovik.)

But yes, people are tired of Bergdahl. They’re tired of the Obama administration’s lies about the case; the perverse deal that freed those five murderous terrorists — and even the bizarre White House photo-op the president staged with the soldier’s freakish parents after the release.

And they’re supremely tired of presidential fecklessness on national security — beginning with that speech in Cairo in 2009 and extending through Libya, Syria, the Iranian nuclear deal and America’s all-but-ruptured relationship with Israel. (Plus so much more.)

Not everybody is angry, of course. But enough are to ensure raucous applause when Trump suggests shooting Bergdahl.

Certainly that same impulse fueled Trump’s broad hint during a recent debate that, if elected, he might well order the military not only to torture terrorists — but also to murder their families.

There are times when one can only blink when The Donald delivers such lines, and then look for the hidden joke. And who knows — maybe it’s in there somewhere.

But Trump’s primary-season performance has been such that what he says needs to be taken seriously. He’s promising to order war crimes, after all.

Would career military officers obey such orders? “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me,” says Trump. “If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”

One hopes not, but history and human nature suggest some would. As for the rest — well, there’s where honor, tradition, duty and courage would be put to the test.

More subtly, but of equal significance, is this: What sort of an officer would serve in an administration where such a choice is not only a possibility — but was a campaign promise?

Surely, even now, the Army is asking itself that question.

So should America.