Trump's case against Senator Mark Kelly faces steep hurdles under military law

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Threats by the Trump administration to recall Senator Mark Kelly to active Navy duty, and to prosecute him under military law for urging troops to disobey illegal orders, would face steep hurdles in a system designed to give troops strong rights to due process, according to seven military law experts.

Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds posted videos about disobeying illegal orders that Trump called "dangerous" and "seditious." The FBI and the Department of Defense are investigating. Democrats have criticized the president's decisions to attack boats allegedly carrying drugs to the U.S. from Latin America and to deploy the National Guard to police American cities. Kelly told servicemembers in the video: "Our laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders."

Military cases usually involve clear violations because they first have to undergo multiple rounds of investigation and legal approval before reaching a judge, who can dismiss charges that don't pass legal muster. Kelly's case is not clear-cut, and several legal experts told Reuters they did not think he broke the law.

Victor Hansen, a former military prosecutor and professor at New England Law Boston, said it was one thing for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to threaten a court-martial and another for it to take place. “It would be a mistake to assume that Pete Hegseth can by fiat say, OK we’re going to court-martial. That's not going to happen," Hansen said in an interview.’

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trumps-case-against-senator-mark-kelly-faces-steep-hurdles-under-military-law-2025-11-26/

Any court-martial is meritless, a partisan contrivance of the Trump regime.

Telling military service members that it is perfectly lawful to refuse to obey Trump’s illegal orders is neither dangerous nor seditious.

This will be another legal defeat for Trump.

 

[saveliberty]

‘Threats by the Trump administration to recall Senator Mark Kelly to active Navy duty, and to prosecute him under military law for urging troops to disobey illegal orders, would face steep hurdles in a system designed to give troops strong rights to due process, according to seven military law experts.

Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds posted videos about disobeying illegal orders that Trump called "dangerous" and "seditious." The FBI and the Department of Defense are investigating. Democrats have criticized the president's decisions to attack boats allegedly carrying drugs to the U.S. from Latin America and to deploy the National Guard to police American cities. Kelly told servicemembers in the video: "Our laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders."

Military cases usually involve clear violations because they first have to undergo multiple rounds of investigation and legal approval before reaching a judge, who can dismiss charges that don't pass legal muster. Kelly's case is not clear-cut, and several legal experts told Reuters they did not think he broke the law.

Victor Hansen, a former military prosecutor and professor at New England Law Boston, said it was one thing for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to threaten a court-martial and another for it to take place. “It would be a mistake to assume that Pete Hegseth can by fiat say, OK we’re going to court-martial. That's not going to happen," Hansen said in an interview.’

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trumps-case-against-senator-mark-kelly-faces-steep-hurdles-under-military-law-2025-11-26/

Any court-martial is meritless, a partisan contrivance of the Trump regime.

Telling military service members that it is perfectly lawful to refuse to obey Trump’s illegal orders is neither dangerous nor seditious.

This will be another legal defeat for Trump.

Your military law experts might be an oxymoron. So your basically saying cases with little merit shouldn't be pursued against politicians? Where was this revelation during the frivolous Trump cases?

 

[White 6]

Your military law experts might be an oxymoron. So your basically saying cases with little merit shouldn't be pursued against politicians? Where was this revelation during the frivolous Trump cases?

I think he is saying this case would lack merit. After all, there are a lot of manuals and even military education videos, that would have to be changed and all the old material telling soldiers they must not follow illegal orders would have to be done away with and all that wrote them, saw them, silenced, killed or done away with, at least for the length of the trial. It just isn't possible to get rid of that many manuals, training videos, and people. Convicting anybody of anything related to the telling of the truth regarding military regulations is pretty much a non-starter. Throw in that the accused would be a bonafide hero and sitting Senator, you can pretty much forget it.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Trumps case?

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

I think the strategy of the prosecution will be to pretend the 6 Senators claimed Trump has previously issued an illegal order. But they sis no such thing in the video. Experts weigh in:

"The likelihood of this getting any traction in the military justice system is essentially zero," said Eugene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School."

Read more:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trumps-case-against-senator-mark-kelly-faces-steep-hurdles-under-military-law-2025-11-26/

 

[HikerGuy83]

Oh, this is a shock.

First, it's not Trump's case.

It's his typical blathering.

And anyone who knows Trump, meaning a lot of us who voted for him, knows this kind of things is going NOWHERE.

But you still have to say somthing because you just gotta scratch that left-wing itch.

 

[Concerned American]

Oh, this is a shock.

First, it's not Trump's case.

It's his typical blathering.

And anyone who knows Trump, meaning a lot of us who voted for him, knows this kind of things is going NOWHERE.

But you still have to say somthing because you just gotta scratch that left-wing itch.

He and the rest of the democrats are doing their best to run damage control over the daily democrat stupidity and violence. If he can keep you talking about these seditious senators, you won't be talking about the murderous Afghani that the democrats allowed into the country.

 

[Concerned American]

I made a thread about Trump giving assylun to the killer. There goes your distraction theory.

LOL, Trump was not POTUS in 2021. Try again Charlatan from GA.

Ex-FBI special agent explains Afghan vetting failures in wake of National Guard ambush: ‘Ticking time bomb’

The ambush shooting of two National Guard members near the White House is fueling fresh scrutiny vetting processes during the 2021 Afghan withdrawal.

www.foxnews.com

 

[tahuyaman]

It’s clear what these Democrats are trying to do. They are trying to turn the military against the Commander in Chief. They resent the reception he receives when he addresses the troops.

They want dissension and declining morale so they can use it as a campaign issue in 2028. They are setting the table for that now. No matter what what, in 2028 they will say that military morale is in the toilet. During their 2028 convention they will trot out some former military member who was discharged for some misconduct and portray him or her as a heroic victim.



They view the military as partisan political pawns. These politicians who were in the military and roiling this movement are elitists. Chances are they were never in a position where they led soldiers.

Anyone with troop leading experience can tell one thing which is consistent and true. Soldiers have an unusual ability to identify bullshit regardless of their education level or test scores.


They, like many liberals think military personnel are stupid and incapable of doing anything else. You see some liberal trolls here denigrate military people routinely. They love their left wing generals and admirals. Anyone else, is just trash to them.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

LOL, Trump was not POTUS in 2021. Try again Charlatan from GA.

Ex-FBI special agent explains Afghan vetting failures in wake of National Guard ambush: ‘Ticking time bomb’

The ambush shooting of two National Guard members near the White House is fueling fresh scrutiny vetting processes during the 2021 Afghan withdrawal.

www.foxnews.com

He approved assylum in 2025. why did he not look at the paperwork?

 

[elektra]

Civilians dont know military law
democrats are filthy liars
The democrat base is dumb bilnd sheeple

The Military has a law for everything.

"Conduct unbecoming an officer" under
Article 133 of the UCMJ is a charge for commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen whose actions are dishonest, indecent, or otherwise fall below the high moral standard expected of their rank. This includes offenses like adultery, fraud, hazing, or public drunkenness, which disgrace the individual and harm the reputation of the military. The charge applies to both official and private conduct, and the definition of "unbecoming" is determined on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Your military law experts might be an oxymoron. So your basically saying cases with little merit shouldn't be pursued against politicians? Where was this revelation during the frivolous Trump cases?

i don't mind you using the "this case is crappy because it's revenge" argument. It doesn't contradict what the experts say.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Civilians dont know military law
democrats are filthy liars
The democrat base is dumb bilnd sheeple

The Military has a law for everything.

"Conduct unbecoming an officer" under
Article 133 of the UCMJ is a charge for commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen whose actions are dishonest, indecent, or otherwise fall below the high moral standard expected of their rank. This includes offenses like adultery, fraud, hazing, or public drunkenness, which disgrace the individual and harm the reputation of the military. The charge applies to both official and private conduct, and the definition of "unbecoming" is determined on a case-by-case basis.

You lied about the experts quoted were not miltary experts:

• Victor Hansen, a former military prosecutor and professor at New England Law Boston.
• Geoffrey Corn, an Army veteran and law professor at Texas Tech University.
• Eugene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School.

 

[elektra]

You lied about the experts quoted were not miltary experts:

• Victor Hansen, a former military prosecutor and professor at New England Law Boston.
• Geoffrey Corn, an Army veteran and law professor at Texas Tech University.
• Eugene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School.

"Conduct unbecoming an officer" under
Article 133 of the UCMJ is a charge for commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen whose actions are dishonest, indecent, or otherwise fall below the high moral standard expected of their rank. This includes offenses like adultery, fraud, hazing, or public drunkenness, which disgrace the individual and harm the reputation of the military. The charge applies to both official and private conduct, and the definition of "unbecoming" is determined on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

"Conduct unbecoming an officer" under
Article 133 of the UCMJ is a charge for commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen whose actions are dishonest, indecent, or otherwise fall below the high moral standard expected of their rank. This includes offenses like adultery, fraud, hazing, or public drunkenness, which disgrace the individual and harm the reputation of the military. The charge applies to both official and private conduct, and the definition of "unbecoming" is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Thanks for linking to the law prohibiting adultery and dunkenness. LOL
by the way, why did you call them civilian experts?

 

[elektra]

Thanks for linking to the law prohibiting adultery and dunkenness. LOL
by the way, why did you call them civilian experts?

Thanks for proving you have low IQ comprehension skills.

"Conduct unbecoming an officer" under
Article 133 of the UCMJ is a charge for commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen whose actions are dishonest, indecent, or otherwise fall below the high moral standard expected of their rank.

 

[Seymour Flops]

‘Threats by the Trump administration to recall Senator Mark Kelly to active Navy duty, and to prosecute him under military law for urging troops to disobey illegal orders, would face steep hurdles in a system designed to give troops strong rights to due process, according to seven military law experts.

Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds posted videos about disobeying illegal orders that Trump called "dangerous" and "seditious." The FBI and the Department of Defense are investigating. Democrats have criticized the president's decisions to attack boats allegedly carrying drugs to the U.S. from Latin America and to deploy the National Guard to police American cities. Kelly told servicemembers in the video: "Our laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders."

Military cases usually involve clear violations because they first have to undergo multiple rounds of investigation and legal approval before reaching a judge, who can dismiss charges that don't pass legal muster. Kelly's case is not clear-cut, and several legal experts told Reuters they did not think he broke the law.

Victor Hansen, a former military prosecutor and professor at New England Law Boston, said it was one thing for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to threaten a court-martial and another for it to take place. “It would be a mistake to assume that Pete Hegseth can by fiat say, OK we’re going to court-martial. That's not going to happen," Hansen said in an interview.’

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trumps-case-against-senator-mark-kelly-faces-steep-hurdles-under-military-law-2025-11-26/

Any court-martial is meritless, a partisan contrivance of the Trump regime.

Telling military service members that it is perfectly lawful to refuse to obey Trump’s illegal orders is neither dangerous nor seditious.

This will be another legal defeat for Trump.

You should wait for the investigation to be over before you jump to such conclusions.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a social media video urging U.S. troops to defy “illegal orders” say the FBI has contacted them to begin scheduling interviews, signaling a possible inquiry into the matter.

It would mark the second investigation tied to the video, coming a day after the Pentagon announced it is investigating Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona over potential violations of military law. The FBI and Pentagon actions come after President Donald Trump accused the lawmakers of sedition “punishable by DEATH” in a social media post.

FBI seeks interviews with Democrats who appeared in video urging troops to defy illegal orders

Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a social media video urging U.S. troops to defy “illegal orders” say the FBI has contacted them to begin scheduling interviews.

www.pbs.org

Scheduling interviews sounds like the beginning of a lengthy process. Wait for it to play out.

If Victor Hansen is correct, then Mark Kelly and the others have nothing to worry about, so long as their planning for this video did not include expectation that the military would be weakened by it.

But we need a thorough investigation before that can be determined.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Thanks for proving you have low IQ comprehension skills.

"Conduct unbecoming an officer" under
Article 133 of the UCMJ is a charge for commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen whose actions are dishonest, indecent, or otherwise fall below the high moral standard expected of their rank.

Ok. Let’s start with “dishonest part ” What was dishonest about telling soldiers they can disobey orders that are illegal? Tomorrow we can move on to the “indecent” part.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

You should wait for the investigation to be over before you jump to such conclusions.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a social media video urging U.S. troops to defy “illegal orders” say the FBI has contacted them to begin scheduling interviews, signaling a possible inquiry into the matter.

It would mark the second investigation tied to the video, coming a day after the Pentagon announced it is investigating Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona over potential violations of military law. The FBI and Pentagon actions come after President Donald Trump accused the lawmakers of sedition “punishable by DEATH” in a social media post.

FBI seeks interviews with Democrats who appeared in video urging troops to defy illegal orders

Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a social media video urging U.S. troops to defy “illegal orders” say the FBI has contacted them to begin scheduling interviews.

www.pbs.org

Scheduling interviews sounds like the beginning of a lengthy process. Wait for it to play out.

If Victor Hansen is correct, then Mark Kelly and the others have nothing to worry about, so long as their planning for this video did not include expectation that the military would be weakened by it.

But we need a thorough investigation before that can be determined.

Are they going to investigate whether the video is longer and there’s a secret 2-minute clip of them telling soldiers to disobey Logan instead of illegal orders?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Are they going to investigate whether the video is longer and there’s a secret 2-minute clip of them telling soldiers to disobey Logan instead of illegal orders?

Logan who?

Depends on what they uncover once Captain Kelly starts singing.