https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/judge-blocks-mark-kelly-demotion-illegal-orders-rcna258777A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the Trump administration "trampled" on Sen. Mark Kelly’s First Amendment rights, blocking Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's efforts to punish the Arizona senator, a retired Naval officer. “This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees,” U.S. District Judge Richard Leon wrote. “After all, as Bob Dylan famously said, 'You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.' To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their Government, and our Constitution demands they receive it!”“Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired service members have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years,” Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote. “If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights!"He added, "Hopefully this injunction will in some small way help bring about a course correction in the Defense Department’s approach to these issues.”In a post on X, Hegseth said the ruling would be "immediately appealed." He added, "Sedition is sedition, 'Captain.'"Hegseth said in January that the Pentagon was taking steps to downgrade Kelly’s military retirement rank and pay because of his “seditious statements,” referring to the video from Kelly and the other lawmakers, all of whom had previously served in the military or intelligence community.
Other than Kelly, the Democrats who appeared in the video are Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire and Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, and Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan.In the video, the lawmakers said, “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats coming to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders,” they said. “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”Trump accused the six Democrats who appeared in the video of "seditious behavior" and said they were "in serious trouble."Kelly filed a lawsuit in January, arguing Hegseth’s actions violate Kelly’s First Amendment rights, as well as the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution, which grants immunity to lawmakers for official acts.In a statement posted to X on Thursday, Kelly said that the judge “made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said.”“But this case was never just about me,” he said. “This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they, too, can be censured or demoted just for speaking out. That’s why I couldn’t let it stand.”The Trump administration earlier this week also tried unsuccessfully to indict Kelly and the five other Democrats who appeared in the video.Two sources familiar with the matter said that not a single grand juror found that the office of U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro had reached the probable cause threshold required to secure an indictment, meaning that they did not provide enough evidence to convince a reasonable person that a crime had been committed.
>>1488689Who do you think could drink more beer, Brett Kavanagh or Pete Hegseth?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXN-VorQOhE
Obligatory link to Hegseth saying the same thing he's been in a drunken rampage about for months now back when there was a Democrat in the White House:https://x.com/CaptMarkKelly/status/1996051615476859099
>>1488691are they restricted to drinking with their mouths, or can they pump it directly up their ass? I know Kavanagh has extensive boofing experience, but Hegseth looks like he could pump a quart of whiskey into himself if he had to
>>1488693We can't expect someone that sloshed to remember what he said yesterday, nevermind a decade ago.
Kelly can burn in hell. 300k Iraqis, including civilians and children bombed and burned in the Gulf war. And this Kelly butcher flew the planes that dropped the murder weapons. I'll take the ineptitude of armchair warriors like Hegseth and Trump who kill a few fishermen and boats over the mass murder of more expert murderers.
>>1488689looooll this dude. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J._LeonOnce again the Bush era supports Democrats
>>1488697>bomber pilot followed orders in the 90s"Whoa, wtf??? What a piece of shit war criminal!!">Administration sends military into our streets, murders Americans>Administration guts USAIDLol you can't be serious.
>>1488698Between this, the grand jury who wouldn't indict Kelly and the other Dems for saying things that hurt Hegseth's feefees, and the fact that as was posted earlier in this thread Hegseth said the same thing Kelly said in the video himself a decade ago, it kind of seems like Trump and company are in the wrong on this one.Oh wait, I forgot. Anyone who doesn't immediately give Trump and his minions exactly what they want is part of the deep state
>>1488704It's performative pearl clutching, he doesn't care about all the wars trump is tarting and all the war crimes he committed against fishermen, let alone the invasion of Iran
If anyone is thinking about drinking, and shouldn't, don't do it.
>>1488706Hey man, if you think what Sen. Kelley did was okay that's fine. Just no tears when we do it, okay?
>>1488752The DUI hire already did it and nobody cared.
>>1488752Yeah this joke doesn't work when Hegseth actually did it first lol.
>>1488785>The DUI hire already did it and nobody cared.Told active duty soldiers to ignore "illegal orders" but did not specify which orders, thereby threatening them retaliation when power changes hands? No, but its okay so that will be our next play.
>>1488791Unironically yes. And that's not what Dems did either.
>>1488791He literally did.
>>1488794>>1488795HUGE if true. Link?
>>1488798“If you are doing something that is completely unlawful and ruthless then there is a consequence for that. That’s why the military said it won’t follow unlawful orders from their commander in chief. There’s a standard; there’s an ethos; there’s a belief that we are above so many things are enemies or others would do.”
>>1488791>ignore "illegal orders" but did not specify which orders,...illegal ones
>>1488799He's talking generally, its not an instruction. What they said was >We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community>Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our ConstitutionAnd of course they did not specify what they were talking about. This undermines good order and discipline in the ranks.Either this is totally okay, or its not okay.
>>1488801Ahhh, so its like a threat. Gotcha.
>>1488804No.
>>1488807So, there is like nothing at all that the US military is doing RIGHT NOW that Democrats have said is illegal?
>>1488803>Telling soldiers to follow the law undermines order and discipline.
>>1488810When the military has specific mechanisms to make sure that the law is obeyed? Yes.
>>1488811Mechanisms such as an oath that all members are required to uphold that tells them not to follow illegal orders, yes.
>>1488809The boat strikes come to mind. I don’t know what point you’re trying to make, though.>>1488811No. Those mechanisms apparently aren’t working.
>>1488814>The boat strikes come to mind. I don’t know what point you’re trying to make, though.Ah, so there is something that the military has determined is lawful, that you think is unlawful. So, a bunch of very powerful Democrats making a video about this topic could have an effect on servicemen and women obeying lawful orders, no? >No. Those mechanisms apparently aren’t working.They are, you not liking what is lawful does not mean its unlawful.
>>1488813Actually, its JAG Officers who make these determinations. You fucking idiot. So, we now know>JAG has determined the strikes are legal >Democrats think they arent>Powerful Democrats make a video telling servicemen not to follow these ordersHmmm.... seems like... feels like... this could have an effect on good order and discipline.
>>1488817The military doesn’t determine what the law is. Neither do I.
>>1488821Ah, I see I dealing with a child. Okay, so how it works is we have these things called "laws" and what organizations do to figure out if they are complying with these laws is they hire these people called "lawyers" (people trained specificlly in interpreting and applying the law) and these lawyers advise these organizations on how to behave in a way that complies with the law. In the military, these lawyers are informally called JAGs (Judge Advocate Generals Corps) and what they do is confirm that orders comply with (1) the constitution, (2) military law, (3) US law and (4) international law. Once a JAG signs off on an order, its lawful. They frequently do not sign off on orders. So, knowing that there is this whole system in place to ensure that everything is done by the book. Do you think its okay for politicians to tell soldiers not to obey orders?
>>1488823>Ah, I see I dealing with a child.Poetry.
>>1488824>literally no argument Pottery
>>1488823>Do you think its okay for politicians to tell soldiers not to obey orders?Yes because to act as if the JAG is incorruptible and the US has never committed an unlawful action is naive at best and absolutely retarded at worst.
>>1488826Okay. So lets presume you're right. Its okay to tell soldiers not to obey orders because you dont like the orders they are being given?
>>1488828>Its okay to tell soldiers not to obey orders because you dont like the orders they are being given?That's not what's going on. We're talking about orders that are illegal under US and international law. Soldiers do not have to commit war crimes if ordered by a superior officer; this is enshrined in the oath every member of the armed forces takes. Reminding them of that is not a crime.
>>1488830>Soldiers do not have to commit war crimes if ordered by a superior officer; this is enshrined in the oath every member of the armed forces takes. Reminding them of that is not a crime.So, Sen Kelly was telling soldiers to disobey orders?
>>1488706Well, casting shade to be a dick has consequences, I guess that's all I have to say.Last time all the shade casting lead to a Biden presidency which was awful for everyone involved.Maybe Dems should shut the fuck up?No, wait, they'll get killed by their mentally ill terrorist base if they do that.
>>1488833Soldiers HAVE TO disobey unlawful orders. It is in the UCMJ.
>>1488836Okay. So Kelly was telling them to disobey orders on the boat strikes?
>>1488839Did he say "Do not obey any orders to strike boats" or did he say "Do not obey unlawful orders"?
>>1488842Yes. He is smart enough to not explicitly break the law. Which is why we're so upset - he implicitly broke it and you're saying that its totally cool and 100% okay.
>>1488851>He is smart enough to not explicitly break the law.So he didn't break the law.
>>1488851>he implicitly broke it and you're saying that its totally cool and 100% okayNo. Cool people do crimes. It is 100% okay though.
>>1488857>>1488899If thats how you want it to be, thats cool.
>>1488908You're the one saying "NO HE BROKE THE LAW HE BROKE THE LAW" after two consecutive legal failures that said otherwise.
>>1488912>DC jury
>>1488915You lost in court twice on two different fronts. Go ahead, try again and watch as another grand jury tells you to fuck off.
>>1488918Their point has literally been reduced to "Yes he had a legal right to say it and as a result the Trump admin was in the wrong to go after him by every legal precedent, but what he said hurt my partisan feelings so I'm going to pout and be passive aggressive about it."Sad, really.
>>1488714>trump is tartingHere is a tarthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Guve7Y856kYAnd Rudy Giuliani
>>1488928I wonder sometimes if that's your youtube channel and it's monetized or something.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ocbb7bRTPM
>>1488958>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ocbb7bRTPMOne doesn't need to wonder about you posting that. Monty Python are all about absurdism, surrealism & parody. Also, sarcasm.>that video of Trump tarting aroundhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZkWL-XvO0Uhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-FDW1shmqADoug Piranha would post that vid of Trump the Tart sarcastically. Does his brother Dinsdale need to nail that orange thing's head to the floor when Trump's already doing so to himself, metaphorically?
>>1488964>Monty Python are all about absurdism, surrealism & parody. Also, sarcasm.Indeed, just like this comedy sketch from a TV show. Did you think this was some candid private moment?Regardless, there's never been a point in spamming that video. Just thought you should know no one cares.In fact, almost no one cares about drag shit. It's the transinvasion that people despise.
>>1488973>no one cares.>In fact, almost no one cares about drag shit>>1488958The duality of the hypocrite.
>>1488981Your posts are shit. KYS, faggot.
>>1488973>no one cares>>1488987The duality of the hypocrite.
>>1488990The singularity of the most inane poster on the Internet.
>>1488823>JAG signs off on an order, its lawfulNo, you're expected to have a certain, ultimately finite, presumption that's it's lawful. JAGs are just lawyers in the end. They cannot actually immunize soldiers to do whatever, even if it seems that way most of the time. Firing the top JAGs without cause like what happened last year undermines their integrity as an apolitical body and that presumption that they're giving good advice.
>>1488991>most inane poster on the Internet>>1488987The duality of the hypocrite
>>1488992To put it a different way: There's such a thing as an advice-of-counsel defense. This is the "my lawyer told me I could" defense. That's recognized as having some important limitations. One is that you must have a REASONABLE belief that your lawyer is not bullshitting you.
