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

[Conservative from Georgia]

Logan who?

Depends on what they uncover once Captain Kelly starts singing.

Legal.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Legal.

Ah.

I thought you were trying to bring up the Logan Act. It's been a while since Dems and "not Dems" were grasping at that particular straw.

No, I don't expect any additional video to surface in the investigation of Captain Kelly. My guess is that he will be the payback for General Flynn.

The NCIS will interview him, and he will either lie about his fellow Democrats, which is a crime under Article 107, UCMJ, or he will tell the embarassing truth. Then he will be interviewed by the FBI and the same will happen only under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

The other option - that he will take if his lawyer is any good - is to take the Fifth, thus earning the Nickname Fifth Amendment Kelly.

He won't fall for their, "gosh, if we could just ask a few questions without your lawyer getting involved, it will be over in a jiffy." Sadly, General Flynn did and allowed them to set him and his family up.

 

[Winco]

Trumps case?

Who Else?

Who is bringing this case against Kelly?
Who, give me a name.

 

[g5000]

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

Trump's a draft-dodging, cowardly, bully. Bone Spur isn't going to do shit to a combat veteran who wasn't captured.

 

[Rambunctious]

I served in the Marine Corps. and Marine reserve for 26 years and if I did what Kelly did on national TV.... I would expect to be court martialed...
What makes him different?....

 

[g5000]

I served in the Marine Corps. and Marine reserve for 26 years and if I did what Kelly did on national TV.... I would expect to be court martialed...w

Welll, then, you're an idiot.

I also served. 20 years. Nothing Kelly said was out of line. Our troops do not have to obey unlawful orders. Kelly stated a plain, simple fact.

But I guess not simple enough for you to grasp.

We now have a report that a second strike was called on some survivors after a boat was bombed.

If true, that second strike was an unlawful order which should not have been obeyed, and thus showed exactly how correct Kelly et al. are about these things and the necessity of reminding our troops of their duty.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I served in the Marine Corps. and Marine reserve for 26 years and if I did what Kelly did on national TV.... I would expect to be court martialed...
What makes him different?....

Oh hell, yes!

Can you imagine? It wouldn't even have to be televisied.

If my First Sergeant had told us to fall out and go to our duty stations, and I had yelled out, "Remember, fellas! You only have to obey legal orders and you must disobey illegal orders!"

Maybe . . . If Top had a sense of humor . . . I would have just gotten School of the Soldier as we called it, mowing grass and shoveling dirt on the weekends. But if I had done that at a time of any kind of disgruntlement over the commander or dissention in the ranks, I wouldn't have been offered an Article 15, I would have been in the stockade.

 

[Hellokitty]

Welll, then, you're an idiot.

I also served. 20 years. Nothing Kelly said was out of line. Our troops do not have to obey unlawful orders. Kelly stated a plain, simple fact.

But I guess not simple enough for you to grasp.

We now have a report that a second strike was called on some survivors after a boat was bombed.

If true, that second strike was an unlawful order which should not have been obeyed, and thus showed exactly how correct Kelly et al. are about these things and the necessity of reminding our troops of their duty.

Why didn't Kelly or one of the others use the boat bombing in their video as an example?
A few of the 6 were asked if TRUMP had given any illegal orders, so why didn't any of them mention the boat bombing?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Who Else?

Who is bringing this case against Kelly?
Who, give me a name.

Give us the name of the case.

Oh wait. There is no "case." Mister Hysterical.

The Navy has a few questions for Captain Kelly and is considering recalling him to answer them. That isn't a "case" and that isn't Donald Trump's call. Kelly's best bet, to avoid having to get the uniform out of mothballs, is to go to the Navy and cooperate fully.

If he is innocent, he has nothing to worry about.

Ok. Let’s start with “dishonest part ” What was dishonest about telling soldiers they can disobey orders that are illegal?

It is dishonest for them - and you - to pretend that was anything but a highly politicized implied attack on the Commander in Chief, and an attempt to con some junior soldier or officer into doing what these morons did:

2 Illinois National Guard members speak out: "I won't turn against my neighbors"

Staff Sgt. Demi Palecek and Capt. Dylan Blaha say they'll defy federal orders regarding Trump's immigration enforcement operation in Chicago.

www.cbsnews.com

Captain Kelly and his fellow Dems have not spoken up in support of those two. Nor will they.

Tomorrow we can move on to the “indecent” part.

Alright. Ask me tomorrow.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Give us the name of the case.

Oh wait. There is no "case." Mister Hysterical.

The Navy has a few questions for Captain Kelly and is considering recalling him to answer them. That isn't a "case" and that isn't Donald Trump's call. Kelly's best bet, to avoid having to get the uniform out of mothballs, is to go to the Navy and cooperate fully.

If he is innocent, he has nothing to worry about.


It is dishonest for them - and you - to pretend that was anything but a highly politicized implied attack on the Commander in Chief, and an attempt to con some junior soldier or officer into doing what these morons did:

2 Illinois National Guard members speak out: "I won't turn against my neighbors"

Staff Sgt. Demi Palecek and Capt. Dylan Blaha say they'll defy federal orders regarding Trump's immigration enforcement operation in Chicago.

www.cbsnews.com

Captain Kelly and his fellow Dems have not spoken up in support of those two. Nor will they.

Alright. Ask me tomorrow.

So the prosecutors will try to prove that telling soldiers not to follow illegal orders is an “attack on the President”. I wish you very good luck because you will need it.

Anyway, moving on to whether you really believe yourself: How confident are you that Kelly will be found guilty of the charge related to unbecoming conduct that you foresee?

Do you think Kelly will be found guilty?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Hey look, it's a Jones post.

Where is Jones.

Answer: Not here.

Never is.

Just farts out an OP then hightails it out to avoid the return fire.

 

[OKTexas]

THREAD CLEANED, 19 OFF TOPIC POSTS DELETED, THIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GUY WHO SHOT THE 2 NG SOLDIERS

STAY ON TOPIC OR BE GONE FROM THE THREAD

 

[HikerGuy83]

Like this case is going to trial?????

Hahahahahaha......

This is moronic Spammer-Stalker thread from our buddy CCJ, who will post on as little as Trump picking his nose.

He is a psychopath.

Of course, his fellow Spammer-Stalker has to post like something "serious" is going on here.

It's all just great theatre.

Kelly won't be going to trial or tribunal for anything.

He also won't be a senator after 2028.

 

[Rambunctious]

What Kelly did and the others was despicable... especially when we know if any other man or woman... dem or Republican president had done what Trump is doing none of these people would raise one objection....
This is what TDS looks like....

 

[tahuyaman]

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.

There was no need for a group of partisan politicians needed to do that.

Their intent was and is to create doubt, disloyalty and discontent within the ranks of the military. They are trying to lower morale so they gen then use that as a political issue in the future.

What they are doing can credibly viewed as trying to motivate a form of a military coup.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

There was no need for a group of partisan politicians needed to do that.

Their intent was and is to create doubt, disloyalty and discontent within the ranks of the military. They are trying to lower morale so they gen then use that as a political issue in the future.

What they are doing can credibly viewed as trying to motivate a form of a military coup.

Or…they were trying to save military members from war crimes charges, since liking the trigger in an illegal order makes that person a war criminal under circumstances such as the double tap i

There was no need for a group of partisan politicians needed to do that.

Their intent was and is to create doubt, disloyalty and discontent within the ranks of the military. They are trying to lower morale so they gen then use that as a political issue in the future.

What they are doing can credibly viewed as trying to motivate a form of a military coup.

Good luck trying to convince the military and civil tribunals that Kelly was “thinking” this or that, while the defense quotes Kelly’s exact words.
Question: how confident do you feel Kelly will be convicted of at least one charge?

 

[Hollie]

‘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.

This is another fail for the left. You’re another loon who can’t identify any “illegal orders” issued by Trump.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

This is another fail for the left. You’re another loon who can’t identify any “illegal orders” issued by Trump.

In the trial, no illegal other need to be identified. Because the sixth Democrats didn’t say Trump committed an illegal act. It And it hurts you that the case isn’t about that.

 

[Hollie]

In the trial, no illegal other need to be identified. Because the sixth Democrats didn’t say Trump committed an illegal act. It And it hurts you that the case isn’t about that.

Maybe write that again with coherent sentences?

 

[Seymour Flops]

So the prosecutors will try to prove that telling soldiers not to follow illegal orders is an “attack on the President”. I wish you very good luck because you will need it.

What prosecutors?

The military wants to ask some questions. That's all at this point.

You "not Dems" are the most paranoid people I've ever known, and I work with children with Emotional Disturbance as part of my job.

Anyway, moving on to whether you really believe yourself: How confident are you that Kelly will be found guilty of the charge related to unbecoming conduct that you foresee?

Oh, you think because I answered Winco's question about dishonesty, that I believe Kelly will be charged with a crime? Nope, didn't say that.

I explained why what Kelly did was dishonest.

If you were honest, you would counter that, instead of pretending that I said that I believed Kelly would be found guilty in a court martial. The top half of my post I specifically say that there is no "case" against Kelly. Now you're asking me to predict whether Kelly will be found guilty.

How honest is that?

Do you think Kelly will be found guilty?

If he is innocent, he has nothing to worry about.

You sure seem worried for him.

Why is that?