Six weeks ago, Senator Mark Kelly — and five other members of Congress — released a reckless and seditious video that was clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline. As a retired Navy Captain who is still receiving a military pension, Captain Kelly knows he…
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) January 5, 2026
January 5, 2026
"Six weeks ago, Senator Mark Kelly — and five other members of Congress — released a reckless and seditious video that was clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline...."
"[T]he Department of War... has initiated retirement grade determination proceedings under 10 U.S.C. § 1370(f), with reduction in his retired grade resulting in a corresponding reduction in retired pay."
Posts
129 comments:
We have entered the FO stage of Kelly's FA'ing.
Pete waited until after the Maduro operation. Kid is learning.
Seaman Apprentice Kelly, reporting for duty, sir.
Actions speak so much louder than words.
The ad is truthful. The ad does not urge or incite illegal conduct; indeed, it expressly encourages legal conduct. Even if it were construed as encouraging unlawful conduct, the element of imminence or proximity is missing. Because the statement is plainly protected by the First Amendment, Kelly will win any legal proceeding. The only apparent purpose of this move, then, is intimidation and the imposition of legal costs--pure and simple. It won't work with Kelly, but for people without his resources it could clearly have a massive chilling effect.
Professor Althouse, you find it easy to denounce Elon Musk's speech as shameful. But this conduct is both shameful and far more dangerous. Where is your love for the First Amendment?
Seems appropriate and transparent. Considering Sen. Kelly’s guidance, if military personnel believed the opinions of the NYT, they may have refused to follow orders related to Venezuela.
Bravo. Best Secretary of War in my lifetime.
Sorry about your retirement pay being reduced, Uncle Fester.
All of these leftwing a-hole democrats need a pay cut. and a walk to the door.
All active duty military members receive UCMJ training on service entry and on a regular basis which in part covers illegal orders, so this statement by Kelly was unnecessary and redundant. He did this to undermine the President, not to advise service personnel of their rights because they already knew them. Tough shit Kelly.
Dems and media hacks (D) all smear Hegseth nonstop. they too can f the f off.
Where's Pam Bondi with the indictments against Walz?
These Democrat mother fuckers almost got away with all this thieving. It remains to be seen whether our Attorney General will bring them to justice or whether we have to do it ourselves.
Its good to see some pushback from the Trump administration. This all came about because the D's - as usual - simply wont accept that Trump is the duly POTUS and deserves some respect.
But lets get real. If Kelly cares about this, he will take it to court, and 1 of our 700 district judges will overturn it. Never forget they are the last word on everything Trump does.
That sucks - but 'muricans love it that way.
The ad is truthful. The ad does not urge or incite illegal conduct
Doesn't matter that it was "technically" legal. It's conduct unbecoming and that is illegal.
The D's always play the "War Hero" Game. Y'know find some Vet who's fought in a war, and claim he's a big patriot. It doesn't matter that he's a complete bought off scumbag, just wave his medals in everyone's face, and we're all supposed to swoon.
The RINO's do the same thing. Exhibit A - John McCain. Did you know he was a war hero? Someone may have talked about it.
Stephen, 133 and 134 are much broader than the narrow breaches that you posit. 134 proscribes any act or omission to the prejudice good order and discipline. 134, also speaks to preserving the reputation of the armed forces. to my mind, even the intimation that the armed forces need guard themselves against the regular orders of the duly elected president is in violation of maybe both of these. ask yourself why Kelly felt the need to pronounce his statement in public, except to weaken the bond between the military and the presidency. Or does Kelly believe that the military was incapable of figuring it out for themselves without a senator pompously expressing his prejudices publicly.
One reason the left are so infuriated about Maduro’s arrest is they were really hoping Milley would have sent Delta to the White House to snatch the Trumps. Kelly was still hoping the military would do it even now, if enough flag officers could be convinced Trump was doing a self-coup. Drone footage of Don and Melania being walked from helicopter to Stryker to the Fort Myer brig would have an instructive effect on the uppity right. CC, JSM
Did you know that Miss Lindsey, David French, and "Colonel 3- passports Vindman" were all "war heroes"? All three got purple hearts. The first two for paper cuts, the last one for hitting a land mine on the way to an "all you can eat" Buffett in Baghdad.
"Because the statement is plainly protected by the First Amendment, Kelly will win any legal proceeding."
In case silly Stephen is interested:
The First Amendment applies to the military, but the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) significantly restricts speech and expression to maintain discipline, order, and mission effectiveness, creating a distinct legal environment where actions like "contemptuous words" (Article 88) or speech prejudicial to good order (Article 134) can be punished, even if protected for civilians, balancing constitutional rights with military necessity.
Im old enough to remember the 1980 election. Three WW II vets ran for POTUS, and no one talked about "their service".
Stephen said...
The ad is truthful. The ad does not urge or incite illegal conduct; indeed, it expressly encourages legal conduct. Even if it were construed as encouraging unlawful conduct, the element of imminence or proximity is missing. Because the statement is plainly protected by the First Amendment, Kelly will win any legal proceeding..
It’s so much fun to watch people who have never been through a ucmj brief post really stupid things like this.
UCMJ has no first amendment clauses. You sign the contract.
All this Legalese blahdeblah is a such a waste of time. The Democrat Judges rule by their politics. Judgement first, reasons afterwards. They will rule for Kelly and make up the reasons latter - in a 100 page judgement.
Watching the FO play out is a delight after all the ugly FAing.
And if Senator Kelly wants to stand on his principles and resign his status and say what he wants, I have no problem with that. But he shouldn’t be able to have it both ways- to keep his retirement status but also say things that tends toward weaken the regular order of the military.
RCOCEAN II said...
All this Legalese blahdeblah is a such a waste of time. The Democrat Judges rule by their politics. Judgement first, reasons afterwards. They will rule for Kelly and make up the reasons latter - in a 100 page judgement.
This will be UCMJ court martial I believe.
I really hope a federal judge tries to get involved.
FormerLawClerk and Quayle: Even if it is true that the text of the UCMJ can be tortured to cover this conduct, that wouldn't solve the First Amendment problem, would it? This is reads as truthful speech, by a United States Senator, on a matter of great public importance. If this can be punished, then any former military officer can be muzzled by the Pentagon, no matter how truthful or germane their public remarks are...or am I missing something? Is that how you read the law (I'm asking as a lawyer)?
LOL: Because the statement is plainly protected by the First Amendment, Kelly will win any legal proceeding
Kelly will not in fact prevail in defending his actions under Articles 133 and 134 of the UCMJ, as Hegseth said, "to which Captain Kelly remains subject as a retired officer receiving pay."
Kelly made his rank part of his recorded "statement" and any blowback is happening because he struck a pose: "As a retired captain..." He knew invoking his own rank was a mistake. But he's an arrogant asshole who thinks the Press can keep consequences from reaching him. He was wrong.
Stephen is wrong. Your feels and lefty judges are not in position to save Kelly from his own mistakes because he signed the contract and accepts the pay. The 1A has zip to do with it. I can say what he said because I am not subject to UCMJ.
"Where is your love for the First Amendment?"
One good answer to a lot of questions beginning "Where is ..." is, "If it was up your ass, you'd know."
Stephen, if you are going to claim Hegseth is "torturing" the UCMJ then please cite the exact wording he is "misusing."
Outrageous claims require at least some proof. You're just hot air and 1A fluff so far. MANY statements are criminal under the First Amendment. Lefties have been telling me that my whole life!
Bugsy says, "Shoot him!" Bugsy shoots and kills him.
Is Bugsy's command protected speech under 1A? No. Didn't even need to invoke the "crowded theatre" claptrap.
Pete is performing WAY above my expectations! This is delicious
Bust Kelly’s retired rank all the way down to Seaman Apprentice. About right, all things considered.
We all need to imagine what we would think if the party affiliations were reversed.
’This is reads as truthful speech, by a United States Senator, on a matter of great public importance.’
You misspelled political.
Senator Mark Kelly (D-Arizona), the former NASA astronaut, has an estimated net worth in the $20–25 million range as of late 2025/early 2026, based on the most recent available Senate financial disclosures and third-party analyses.
BEFORE becoming a US Senator (5 years ago), Kelly's net worth was "only" 10 Million Dollars.. ALL of which came from his wife's Rep. Gabby Giffords grift..
Isn't It NEAT? how Amazingly Fast Congress people's net worth doubles?
Chellie Pingree had a net worth of about 350,000 dollars before becoming a Congressperson in 2009..
She is now worth AT LEAST 10 MILLION dollars..
Pretty good return, for 16 years work!
Come on everybody, Stephen is obviously right--it was just a public service announcement. Apropos of nothing. It's pure coincidence that it gives every indication of being part of a larger effort to undermine our president by disrupting the military chain of command and our country's readiness to oppose our enemies.
How could you even think such a thing?
Had he done it from the senate floor,, he could have availed himself of the 'speech and debate' clause
Stephen said...
FormerLawClerk and Quayle: Even if it is true that the text of the UCMJ can be tortured to cover this conduct, that wouldn't solve the First Amendment problem, would it?
He signed a commission putting himself under UCMJ you retard.
Anyone who has been military before knows that the first amendment is not involved in any way. You keep saying the same ignorant stupidity over and over.
Conduct unbecoming and chain of command. Kelly is cooked. His only hope here is jury nullification which is much harder in a court martial setting.
You are just dumb.
I think you folks may have misunderstood the UCMJ. Take a look at United States v. Wilcox, the leading military case on the topic, which is linked here; https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2008Term/05-0159.pdf
Even for those in active military service, to uphold a conviction for speech acts under the UCMJ the military courts expressly require a showing of "a reasonably direct and palpable connection between the speech and the military mission or military environment." In the leading case, an active servicemember's outright racist comments were held not to satisfy this test. How much harder to make that showing here, given the anodyne content of the speech and the fact that the speaker is retired and no longer in the chain of command. And even if the statutory requirement could be met, the Court would still have to perform a First Amendment analysis, "weighing the gravity of the effect of the speech, discounted by the improbability of its effectiveness on the audience the speaker sought to reach, to determine whether the conviction is warranted. " I haven't seen anyone here suggest how the publicly known facts about this case could possibly satisfy these two tests.
You can freely exercise your First Amendment rights at your job.
You can also be punished for exercising those rights at your job.
The Weasel (my Senator) FAed and FO. Case closed.
Even if it were construed as encouraging unlawful conduct, the element of imminence or proximity is missing. Because the statement is plainly protected by the First Amendment, Kelly will win any legal proceeding.
A legal quiz for you, Stephen:
Why do you suppose that the other politicos who participated in the video were not subjected to military discipline?
Where's Pam Bondi with the indictments against Walz?
What is the evidence for indictments against Walz? Be specific. "He is a schmoe and looks guilty as hell" is not evidence.
I suppose a summary firing squad would have upset some people...
"Sen. Mark Kelly paging Judge Boasberg... Judge Boasberg, please pick-up the courtesy phone."
The SOB just came out and said the raid on VZ was "illegal."
That will be really handy for his upcoming hearing where he can explain if "these" were the "illegal orders" he wished servicemembers to disobey. This is the point where precedent and reality intrude on the fever dreams of leftists who wish to tie the president's hands with imaginary "laws" that do not exist.
Even for those in active military service, to uphold a conviction for speech acts under the UCMJ the military courts expressly require a showing of "a reasonably direct and palpable connection between the speech and the military mission or military environment."
Fair enough, the ad by itself avoided this. However, Kelly’s co-conspirators were asked to what they were referring, and they tied to specific military missions. And I’m not sure how you argue the ad was ever warranted without noting a specific military environment that is Trump’s Administration. Alas, the action will be worked through a court.
Stephen--I think that even you must concede that a published video statement by a U.S. Senator specifically and explicitly directed to members of the U.S. Armed Forces, in their capacity as members of the U.S. Armed Forces, counselling them to disregard orders has "a reasonably direct and palpable connection between the speech and the military mission or military environment." What else is the purpose?
Are you a lawyer?
Stephen I've already showed you the "direct and palpable connection" because it is right there in the text: Kelly said "as a captain...you have a duty to question it, even if it's an order from a superior officer."
Kelly cited his rank which means he is using his authority as a captain to speak to inferior ranks. I doubt you'll answer the question upthread, but you really ought to consider that the reason a guy using his rank is being singled out among the Seditious Six. It ain't random.
Geez. I can't turn off the bold.
Ah. Sorry.
Oh noes
Very weak sauce — since the Department of War doesn’t actually exist, how would this even be taken seriously?
He's being "picked out" because as a retired Navy "Captain" he's still under the requirements of military law, and subject to military justice
Stephen: "If this can be punished, then any former military officer can be muzzled by the Pentagon, no matter how truthful or germane their public remarks are."
And...? We're probably talking about 1 or 2 percent of the population. (about 15% of the gen pop are veterans; 10% of those were officers)
Small price to pay to ensure that we don't have military cliques trying to control the country. CC, JSM
Stephen said...Take a look at United States v. Wilcox,
It's always fun when someone gets caught out and instead of admitting they were wrong, they do some googling and pretend this is what they meant all along.
This won't be settled on the Althouse blog, Stephen, so there's no point in trying to figure out a way to keep insisting you're right.
Stephen babbled:
How much harder to make that showing here, given the anodyne content of the speech
There is no content less "anodyne" than calling on the military to violate the chain of command and refuse to follow legal orders.
Which is what the ad was calling for, and everyone knows it.
Which is why the people making the ad didn't offer up any "illegal" orders by Trump: They know there aren't any, and that's not what they're trying to stop
and the fact that the speaker is retired and no longer in the chain of command.
Are you stupid, ignorant, or just dishonest? That's he's "retired" means he's still subject to military justice, and still part of the military. Which is why he can be punished, and the others can't.
I hope he tries to fight back, and drags this to a general court martial. That way he can be really crushed.
News flash to leftist morons: US Military officers give up their 1st Amendment rights in order to BE US military officers. By choosing to continue being part of he military, Kelly chose to give up some of those rights.
Stephen: "If this can be punished, then any former military officer can be muzzled by the Pentagon, no matter how truthful or germane their public remarks are."
If this can punished, wouldn't that demonstrate Mr. Kelly is guilty of what he's been accused of? Or do you only approve of supporting laws when it suits your purpose?
That last is a rhetorical question.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has initiated proceedings to downgrade Kelly’s retired rank and reduce his pension.
He also issued a formal letter of censure and accused Kelly of making “seditious statements”.
He reminded troops they must refuse unlawful orders — which is true under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
This is happening under a process called retirement grade determination (10 U.S.C. § 1370), which allows the Pentagon to review whether a retired officer served “satisfactorily” in their highest rank.
They can start an administrative review of a retired officer’s rank.
Recommend a reduction in retired grade and pay.
WHAT THEY CANNOT DO Automatically demote him without due process.(trump group notorious lack of due process check out immigration)
Punish him criminally unless he’s recalled to active duty (extremely rare).
What is legal challenge here?l
Kelly has 30 days to appeal the action and is already fighting back, calling it intimidation and political retaliation.(NO DUH)
Key Legal Reality:
Telling troops not to obey illegal orders is NOT sedition.
It is literally what the UCMJ requires.
Troops are obligated to:
Obey lawful orders.
Refuse unlawful orders.
Kelly’s statement aligns with long‑standing military law and training.
This type of punishment against a retired officer for public speech is extremely rare.
Critics argue it looks like political retaliation rather than a legitimate military discipline issue.(of course ,its trump the spoiled childs retribution)
Supporters of the action claim Kelly undermined “good order and discipline.”(YEAH LIKE"CANT YOU JUST SHOOT EM IN THE LEG" OR HOW ABOUT JUST HANG THEM)
Either way, this will almost certainly end up in:
Appeals
Possibly federal court
More trump Look over here crap. What a sissy. Of course trump and I'll wager majority of Magas up in here never served and remain clueless about Military duties ,and just follow the herd)BET... more nonsense and waste of time :(
Party of free speech……but only as applied to quacks on Twitter advising that horse dewormer suppositories cure covid.
Fox News shill, Pete Kegsbreath hates the idea that soldiers are reminded that they can refuse to follow an illeagal order.
Stephen: "If this can be punished, then any former military officer can be muzzled by the Pentagon, no matter how truthful or germane their public remarks are."
No, shit for brains, it means any RETIRED military officer can be muzzled.
And they can be.
Which you would know if you weren't a babbling ignoramus.
Here, let's let Grok help you:
The key difference between a "former US military officer" and a "retired US military officer" lies in legal status, benefits, obligations, and how the terms are used in official and common contexts.
Retired US Military Officer
* This refers to someone who has completed qualifying service (typically 20+ years of active duty, or equivalent in reserves with points-based retirement) and has been placed on the retired list by the Department of Defense (DoD).
* They receive military retirement pay (a pension) for life, along with continued access to many military benefits (e.g., TRICARE health care, commissary/exchange privileges, and potential recall to active duty in certain circumstances under 10 U.S.C. § 688).
* They retain a formal connection to the military: Their name remains on official retired rolls, they can still be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in some cases, and they may be involuntarily recalled to duty if needed (though this is rare and limited).
Kelly chose to be "retired", not just "former". Now he gets to pay for his choices
Boatbuilder: yes I am a lawyer.
McGuire: how exactly was I caught in error? Commenters were suggesting that the First Amendment didn't apply at all. I quoted a case showing that not only does it apply, but that it has been read into the relevant statutes in order to prevent them from being unconstitutional under the First Amendment. What's the error?
Mason G: my point is that it is very hard to reconcile punishment for this conduct with basic First Amendment law or with any sensible policy of military discipline, let alone with how much power we want the Secretary of Defense to have to squelch criticism of military policy by former officers. If Biden were doing this, or anything like it, you guys would be marching in the streets, and I would march with you.
Kak’s entries always increase my scrolling time but not my reading time.
DINKY DAU 45 said...
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has initiated proceedings to downgrade Kelly’s retired rank and reduce his pension.
Good, it's well deserved.
He also issued a formal letter of censure and accused Kelly of making “seditious statements”.
Good. He did
He reminded troops they must refuse unlawful orders — which is true under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
He tried to claim that the troops are currently receiving illegal orders that they must disobey, when they aren't. that's why his statements are seditious.
I do hope Kelly fights this all teh way to a general court martial, because he will almost assuredly lose there.
Kelly and his co-conspirators could have said "remember, these kind of orders are illegal", and then listed actual illegal orders that they shouldn't obey. but if they did that, they'd have to admit that Trump isn't issuing any such orders. Which would then expose the reality of their actions, which is they're demanding that troops disobey legal orders, like the orders to grab Maduro
Stephen, you seem to be a reasonable person, so you and I know it was a monumentally stupid thing for Kelly to do. This wasn’t about talking truth to the military. This was about attacking Trump by innuendo and weakening the bond between the commander in chief and the military in the process. the unstated innuendo was that Trump was of a nature likely to give an illegal order. But they provide no evidence of any illegal order he had given, and they provide no evidence of said nature. it would would’ve been much smarter if he stayed on the sidelines till he saw an illegal order and then jumped forward. But this was destructive and you know it
Sorry, this time I meant Dinky. Dinky Dau’s entries always increase my scrolling time but not my reading time.
Big whoop. Sen. Kelly's rank (and First Amendment right to restate noncontroversial military law) will be restored, with honors, when a Democrat replaces incompetent, warmongering, Venezuela First Epstein-bestie paedo Trump in 2029, and Defense is once again run by someone qualified instead of an alcoholic who leaks war plans by drunk text, who only got the job because he's white.
Yawn.
Quayle, I am not sure I would have made the same comments as Kelly in the same place. I am not privy to the communications that he and others, like Slotkin, were receiving from commissioned officers and intelligence personnel, which they claim spurred their actions. But even if unwise or imprudent, after closer study of the case law, I can't see how the DoD wins this case, even in the military courts, under current First Amendment doctrine.
Stephen said...how exactly was I caught in error? Commenters were suggesting that the First Amendment didn't apply at all. I quoted a case showing that not only does it apply,
Fine. It's slow around here so I did more than just glance at your link. In the case you cite, the soldier was accused of engaging in activities that would tend to bring the Army into disrepute because of his views and the judges didn't think it warranted punishment. What does that have to do with this case, where Kelly engaged in the act of encouraging soldiers to disobey orders?
By making the video he inserted himself into the chain of command. By declaring the Maduro op "illegal" today he made it worse, reiterating that he believes Trump is giving illegal orders, which should be disobeyed. He is therefore telling the servicemembers to disobey Trump.
By all means let's sort this out under oath.
There are no "communications" that enable Kelly to insert himself into the command structure and urge disobeying orders. He is a senator. He could have said those things on the floor and been shielded by the robust speech and debate clause (perhaps, don't know if it's been tested against the UCMJ). But he invoked his rank and said it on video as a propaganda message.
He FA and now he will FO.
His actions have consequences. In 45 days or less you can read the news and see how wrong you are.
Well Kelly was a captain in the Navy--that's O-6. Bust him down to O-3--he can still be captain--just in the Marine Corps.
Kelly will now FO what? That after all of the Secretary Drunkard's angry bloviating about courts-martial and sedition trials (that went nowhere because repeating standing law doesn't break the law) he's going to write a strongly worded letter and place it in Kelly's file -- to be removed in a few years by the next administration?
Oh no how will Sen. Kelly ever recover? Pfft lol
After "punishing" Kelly I'm sure the increasingly unpopular Trump regime will get around to locking up Hillary/Comey/James, having Mexico pay for the unbuilt wall, lowering prices and ending the wars on day one, repealing and replacing Obamacare, and/or whatever other empty threats and fake promises are needed to keep their obedient incels distracted.
Tim McGuire: I cited the legal principles stated in the case. The facts of the case are obviously different. But presumably the prosecution of Kelly will have to follow the same legal principles--and it will be relevant that his statement that an officer must disobey an unlawful order is a true and correct statement of the law and of an officer's duty, that he is no longer on active service, no longer has a formal place in the chain of command, is a United States Senator, and is not speaking to any particular officer or any particular decision or class of decisions, other than the broad class of decisions that are unlawful. Wouldn't you agree that these facts are relevant under the principles announced in the case I cited?
Two things. First, suppose we reverse the situation. If the Biden Administration had taken similar action against a Senator, retired military, who been sharply critical of the Afghan withdrawal, would the people defending this on legal grounds have been willing to defend that action on the same grounds? Achillies writes as if he were a veteran. Let's suppose he had a military pension, and let's suppose that pension had been reduced by the Biden Administration, on the grounds that some things Achillies had written about the then Commander in Chief were detrimental to good order and disciple in the armed forces. Would anyone opposing that still be a [Fill in gross term of personal abuse here]?
Second, specifically about Kelly. He is United States Senator. He therefore cannot be a member of the Executive Branch. He therefore cannot be a member of the armed services of the United States, the armed services being a part of the Executive Branch. Trump can give orders to anyone in the military. Ask yourself this: Is there any order in could give Kelly, on any military subject whatever, that Kelly would be obliged to obey? Kelly therefore ought not to be subject to the UMCJ. Also, such power as Congress has to limit free speech in the UMCJ comes from the constitutional power to regulate the armed forces, and that power is limited to the armed forces themselves. Congress should have no power regulate the speech of former military members, or people who are vaguely adjacent to the military, only people who are actually in the miliary. If Congress has assumed such power in writing the UMCJ, they have exceeded their authority.
FAFO.
Bust him for selling out to China.
Peter, I am not certain whether there is jurisdiction for a court martial under the UCMJ. It may be that Kelly's retirement status is sufficient to confer jurisdiction under the cases I have seen--at least the question seems open. But the weakness of the case for regulation has a direct effect on both the substantive case under the statute and also on the First Amendment analysis.
Petey, what are you so afraid of that you can only prove your worth by taking someone down. You are a true soldier of your dear leader, the aggressor in chief, Donny T. It made me thow up a little in my mouth listening to you bloviate, thinking anyone cares fwhat you do. You are the most unqualified, uninteresting and worst Secretary of Defense, ever. And that's a low bar.
@Peter
Is Senator Kelly able to disregard order recall to duty as legislator not subject to executive
Hegseth is the Secretary of War. Austin was the Secretary of Defense.
"...He therefore cannot be a member of the armed services of the United States, the armed services being a part of the Executive Branch....." Ah - so he's relinquished his pension then. Right?
"unlawful" = "lawful" in 1984 and in Trump World.
So Kelly calling the Maduro action "illegal" is interesting. How would a military court, with senior officers as judges, react when Kelly answers "Yes" when asked the question in court..."Would you have advised Seal Team 6 to refuse the order to arrest Maduro".
Look, people. It’s not as though Kelly will miss the money if there’s a reduction in his retirement pay. He’s a Democrat — he’s undoubtedly getting trmnd of millions in kickbacks from graft and corruption.
Stephen, you wrote: “ I am not privy to the communications that he and others, like Slotkin, were receiving from commissioned officers and intelligence personnel, which they claim spurred their actions.”
Perhaps. But did Slotkin and Kelly know or even consider that those signaled “contemplations” of orders that would’ve been illegal ( apparently none were actually given to which they can cite, so we presume there may have been discussions or contemplations of such) - did Slotkin and Kelly ever consider that those “contemplations” were themselves security ops?That is, contemplations of orders, purposely sent through the ranks to ‘out’ the disloyal? To find out who was going to come back up through the chain with concerns, versus who was going to go public with concerns?
given how abominably the Washington DC established bureaucracy treated Trump number 1, it would not surprise me at all if Trump number 2 came in fully armed with all the ways of detecting insubordination and silent subversion.
"he’s undoubtedly getting trmnd of millions in kickbacks from graft and corruption."
And if the pictures of him on the intertubes are accurate, he's also got 'His Precious' to fall back on. Which is nice.
Doing it just so it can be reinstated in January 2029, probably with back pay included.
The crap you guys count as wins gets increasingly bogus.
Ritter mit eisernen Faust: "How would a military court, with senior officers as judges, react when Kelly answers "Yes" when asked the question in court..."Would you have advised Seal Team 6 to refuse the order to arrest Maduro"."
Kelly's lawyer would object on grounds of speculation/hypothetical. If the court still allows the question, Kelly would truthfully say he has not been briefed on all the details of the mission, so he can't say what he would advise. Unless the prosecution would like to give him all the information Team VI had at the time? CC, JSM
JSM : Then Kelly would have to answer why he has already called it 'illegal'. Kelly trapped himself.
P.S. any relation to Mosby's Raiders?
victoria - you sound insane and clueless.
It was very Teddy Roosevelt and Monroe Doctrine..
Two things that always make me laugh.
Appeals to International Law, and …
Citing civil law in cases where the UCMJ applies.
Stephen you claim to be a lawyer, but you evaded the direct question I asked you, which is "what was the purpose of Kelly's statement, if not to have an effect on 'the military mission or military environment?'" Clearly, that was it's entire purpose.
Peter Spieker--I recall lots of harsh (and well deserved) criticism of Biden's actions in relation to the botched Afghanistan abandonment. I do not recall any public official, let alone any former or retired officer, publicly suggesting that any member of the Armed Services should disobey orders from Biden or anyone else in the chain of command.
Your example is, accordingly, a deflection and a red herring.
Did Kelly go full Milley?
Milley, if you recall, was making calls to China behind Trump's back.
victoria said...
Petey, what are you so afraid of that you can only prove your worth by taking someone down. You are a true soldier of your dear leader, the aggressor in chief, Donny T. It made me thow up a little in my mouth listening to you bloviate, thinking anyone cares fwhat you do. You are the most unqualified, uninteresting and worst Secretary of Defense, ever. And that's a low bar.
I am so glad victoria can tell us what a true soldier is.
These people are fucking imbeciles.
Goetz: Yes. That is who I chose as my avatar. John Singleton Mosby. The Grey Ghost. Ironically, first heard about him from a black Ranger Instructor, who gave us a rah-rah speech right before graduation: "you will be joining the ranks of Rogers, and Darby, and Mosby...." CC, JSM
Peter Spieker said...
Two things. First, suppose we reverse the situation. If the Biden Administration had taken similar action against a Senator, retired military, who been sharply critical of the Afghan withdrawal, would the people defending this on legal grounds have been willing to defend that action on the same grounds? Achillies writes as if he were a veteran. Let's suppose he had a military pension, and let's suppose that pension had been reduced by the Biden Administration, on the grounds that some things Achillies had written about the then Commander in Chief were detrimental to good order and disciple in the armed forces. Would anyone opposing that still be a [Fill in gross term of personal abuse here]?
I am actually a Veteran. This is an easy question.
If I was still commissioned and receiving money as a commissioned officer and I committed conduct unbecoming an officer I would fully expect my pay to be cut.
Because that is what UCMJ stipulates.
You non-military people need to stop posting stupid ignorant shit.
Holsey suggested a similar course
Peter Spieker said...
Second, specifically about Kelly. He is United States Senator. He therefore cannot be a member of the Executive Branch. He therefore cannot be a member of the armed services of the United States, the armed services being a part of the Executive Branch.
He is a commissioned officer.
You people are so dumb it hurts.
"It made me thow up a little in my mouth listening to you bloviate, thinking anyone cares fwhat you do."
Maybe it would help with the typos if you weren't in such a hurry to express your "not caring", ya think?
"You people are so dumb it hurts."
It doesn't hurt them.
Big Mike said...
Look, people. It’s not as though Kelly will miss the money if there’s a reduction in his retirement pay. He’s a Democrat — he’s undoubtedly getting trmnd of millions in kickbacks from graft and corruption.
Kelly made most of his millions of dollars selling Chinese supplements.
He goes on stage and tells people to buy supplements made by companies owned by the CCP.
He gets paid millions of dollars to do this. Kelly is a really good salesman and that is why the Chinese government owned companies pay him so much to sell their supplements.
Kelly is a traitor on so many levels.
Goetz: are you named after the 16th-century knight, or his little-known descendant Bernie Goetz von Berlichingen, who used his unregistered iron fist against muggers on the Munich U-Bahn? CC, JSM
Because the statement is plainly protected by the First Amendment, Kelly will win any legal proceeding.
The only people making the First Amendment argument are people like you because it has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Tell me why they made the ad. What was the purpose?
Anyone with any understanding whatsoever of civil law, criminal law, military law, and Constitutional Law, knows full well that the case against Senator Mark Kelly is null and void. It won't go anywhere. Everyone knows this. It is just virtue signaling by MAGA.
Article 134 is obviously unconstitutional, at least, in a civilian context. Imagine a civilian law- "Anything else we forgot to make unlawful can be charged anyway under this law, with punishment to be determined by the court." How then does it pass muster, as it has since the UCMJ was written, with similar rules existing back in time to before the Constitution was adopted? Article 1 Section 8: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;, an implicit recognition existing since formal governments and armies existed that military forces are and have to be ruled differently then civilians.
Neither Senator Mark Kelly nor Captain Mark Kelly on X have stated (that I have seen) that toppling Maduro was an unlawful order. He know better then to go there- because his fellow officers obeyed the order without question. Calling them out for failing their oaths would ensure a court martial where he would be found guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. And a lot of lawsuits for libel and/or slander.
lonejustice said...
"Anyone with any understanding whatsoever of civil law, criminal law, military law, and Constitutional Law, knows full well that the case against Senator Mark Kelly is null and void."
I spent 26 years in the Army, and served as Recorder (Prosecutor) twice. CAPT Kelly's actions are in direct violation of at least two articles in the UCMJ.
There will be a public fight about this, but He Seth's actions are justified
BTW, lonejustice, anyone with a smattering of knowledge about military law, including retired military me, 2 commissioned officer sons, on prior enlisted son and his wife, are all aware that the case against Mark Kelly is not null and void, and the comments I see online from both enlisted and officer friends applaud the action to hold him accountable.
AZ - needs to clean up its voting. A-holes like Kelly would be out.
The cartel lawyer who is the secretary of state (former) is a problem
Peter Spieker said...
Two things. First, suppose we reverse the situation. If the Biden Administration had taken similar action against a Senator, retired military, who been sharply critical of the Afghan withdrawal
Go fuck yourself, you lying sack of shit.
The equivalent would be a US Senator saying that Biden's orders to close down Baghram Airbase were illegal, and any US soldier who followed them should be arrested for following illegal orders.
Kelly didn't say "I don't like what Trump is doing", he said "Trump arresting Maduro was illegal". This follows him saying "remember, you can be arrested for following illegal orders".
let's actually turn this around, shall we we Mr Lying Sack of Shit: What would the Left's response have been to Pete Hegseth saying in 2022 that "The Biden Admin is a criminal Admin, and US soldiers should stop obeying their orders"?
You would have flipped your lids. But that's what Kelly did.
ET go home!!!
The next Secretary of Defense can and should have it removed from his file. The same goes for any reduction in grade and salary.
Defiance.org was one of the NGOs that put up billboard's advising servicemen not to obey orders they thought were unconstitutional. It's right there in the name. It's about defiance, not about legality or constitutionality.
My lawyer Grok tells me that politicians in the reserves do fall under military law (UMCJ). Whether that applies to what Kelly was doing is another question, but he can't claim some blanket "legislative privilege" in all matters.
I love that one of the newest ignorant/stupid commentators exposed himself using two names. Sorta like Chuck.
Dear Boatbuilder,
Here's how I think a court might address your argument.
The content of the message is not that officers should refuse to follow any or all orders. Instead, it is more focused.
The express language of the statement reminds officers of their general obligation to follow the law in the specific context where they have received an unlawful order. Officers in fact have such an obligation, even if it involves disobeying an order, so there is no falsehood in reminding them of that.
Nor is there any predictable adverse effect on good order. The order does not urge non compliance with lawful orders, and its position on unlawful orders is both legally correct and likely to encourage non compliance with unlawful orders, which contributes to good order.
Then add in that the message is broadcast generally, and is not targeted to any particular officer or order, so that it cannot be understood as urging or likely to cause disobedience to any specific legal order.
If the lawyers can make the showing, then how does the government establish the kind of specific adverse impact on good order or mission success that would justify finding a violation of the statute and overcome the First Amendment defense?
Named after my father, Goetz von Berlichingen, Sr.. Yes, I do have the requisite iron fist and steely tongue, which I can use interchangeably depending on the situ.
Relatives rode with NBForrest and my Dad was once NBF the #3rd's adjutant preWW2.
In this instance, to be demoted is an honor, the further the demotion the greater the honor. The greatest honor would be to be dismissed from the retired ranks of the service entirely.
As several pointed out, the UCMJ rules. Kelly was seditious. As a veteran, I know exactly what he was saying. It was not just seditious, it was shameful. He thinks the clever words he used will protect him. They do not. I don't know what kind of pilot he was, but I do know he is a POS.
Stphen et al;
You took an oath and one of the parts of the oath is to obey those officers above you in rank. The other thing is you signed a contract and took the kings shilling.
Not a lot of wiggle room left for Sen. Kelly.
Rusty,
Your statements are not accurate. Military officers do not swear an oath to always obey officers above them in rank. The oath is to support and defend the constitution and fulfill the duties of one's office. Under the UCMJ, there is no duty to obey an illegal order.
The fact that an officer also signed a contract, if true, adds nothing to this analysis: again, the promise was not to follow every order, however illegal, but do do your duty, including by following the law. I haven't researched the issue, but my suspicion is that a contract term requiring obedience to illegal orders would itself be unlawful under the UCMJ.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.