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

[j-mac]

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.

Yes there are manuals, videos, and training within the military. So why the need to make this video in the first place?

 

[Marener]

Yes there are manuals, videos, and training within the military. So why the need to make this video in the first place?

I guess the military should court martial all the people who made those training materials too. After all, telling soldiers they shouldn’t obey illegal orders is SEDITION!

 

[Hafar1014]

‘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.

Better to keep humiliating Kelly in social media. He made an ass out of himself and court marshal allows him to play the victim

 

[Seymour Flops]

I was trained several times in the difference between legal and illegal orders.

Not a single one of those trainings were in the form of a thirty second public service announcement. Nor did any simply say,

"You can refuse illegal orders.
"You can refuse illegal orders.
"You must refuse illegal orders."

That doesn't sound like thoughtful training on a legal issue of great complexity that could put a service member in jeopardy if they applied the training incorrectly.

That sounds like the chanting of propaganda slogans.

I expected them to next go to,

"Orange man bad.
"Orange man bad.
"Orange man bad!"

And then dissolve to Donald Trump's face full screen with the face of Goldstein superimposed.

 

[Seymour Flops]

All of the trainings that I remember on military law and the law of land warfare, were conducted by lawyers.

They did not give us a slogan. they gave us case law and hypothetical examples based on case law. Those trainings lasted an hour or more, not thirty seconds.

These Democrats are smart enough to know that, even if none of them are lawyers themselves.

The video was not to help the troops. It was just another lame attempt to GET TRUMP!

 

[tahuyaman]

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

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?

Their intent was exactly what I said it was. A conservative would recognize that. But you’re not a conservative as you are claiming.

I doubt Kelly will be convicted, but he should be recalled from retirement to face charges under the UCMJ.

 

[Seymour Flops]

My prediction is a letter of reprimand, signed by the court-martial convening authority and endorsed by the President.

It may be taken out of his jacket by a future Dem president, but that would likely be posthumous.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

I doubt Kelly will be convicted, but he should be recalled from retirement to face charges under the UCMJ.

all this blah blah blah about Kelly being guilty of a crime just to admit that the case isn’t going anywhere. thank you.
You just want him sitting there and being found not guilty. Lol. Typical.

 

[Lesh]

Better to keep humiliating Kelly in social media. He made an ass out of himself and court marshal allows him to play the victim

Hardly, given what we’re finding out about those boat bombings

 

[Hafar1014]

Hardly, given what we’re finding out about those boat bombings

They are an astounding success which defines democrats as failures even supporters of drug dealers

 

[tahuyaman]

all this blah blah blah about Kelly being guilty of a crime just to admit that the case isn’t going anywhere. thank you.
You just want him sitting there and being found not guilty. Lol. Typical.

Guilty people go free all the time.

Why are you pretending to be a conservative? That’s dishonest.

 

[j-mac]

I guess the military should court martial all the people who made those training materials too. After all, telling soldiers they shouldn’t obey illegal orders is SEDITION!

Best not to show what a moron you are.

 

[Marener]

Best not to show what a moron you are.

This whole “controversy” is one of the most moronic things that Trump has convinced you to believe.

 

[White 6]

Yes there are manuals, videos, and training within the military. So why the need to make this video in the first place?

To make sure they are reminded. After all, you could have some criminal puppet Seal Admiral, taking and/or passing along totally, blatantly illegal orders like, killing survivors of military attacks, in the water, clinging to wreckage for their life.
Pete Hegseth has stated that U.S. military personnel should not follow unlawful orders from their commander-in-chief, emphasizing that there are consequences for carrying out such orders. This stance aligns with military law, which obligates service members to disobey illegal directives.

Newsweek U.S. Senate

 

[Seymour Flops]

To make sure they are reminded. After all, you could have some criminal puppet Seal Admiral, taking and/or passing along totally, blatantly illegal orders like, killing survivors of military attacks, in the water, clinging to wreckage for their life.
Pete Hegseth has stated that U.S. military personnel should not follow unlawful orders from their commander-in-chief, emphasizing that there are consequences for carrying out such orders. This stance aligns with military law, which obligates service members to disobey illegal directives.

Newsweek U.S. Senate

If I could imagine that such a comic book villain as you envision would exist in the U.S. military, an evil Trumper who somehow got pushed up the ladder during the Biden years, I still would not have the imagination to believe that he or she would suddenly remember when she saw a Youtube video of Mark Kelly and some other Dems reminding service members of the widely known illegal orders training and say to themseves, "what was I thinking! Of course I will not follow this order that is clearly unlawful.

 

[White 6]

If I could imagine that such a comic book villain as you envision would exist in the U.S. military, an evil Trumper who somehow got pushed up the ladder during the Biden years, I still would not have the imagination to believe that he or she would suddenly remember when she saw a Youtube video of Mark Kelly and some other Dems reminding service members of the widely known illegal orders training and say to themseves, "what was I thinking! Of course I will not follow this order that is clearly unlawful.

It has been verified, the Admiral did order the 2nd attack, knowing survivors were in the water.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It has been verified, the Admiral did order the 2nd attack, knowing survivors were in the water.

So the video did not stop him?

 

[Seymour Flops]

It has been verified, the Admiral did order the 2nd attack, knowing survivors were in the water.

AI has the admiral insisting on a second strike to complete the mission, not to kill helpless wreckage clingers.

AI Overview

U.S. Navy
Vice Admiral Frank M. Bradley ordered a second military strike that killed two survivors of an initial attack on a suspected drug boat near Venezuela in September 2025. This order was reportedly made to comply with guidance from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Key Details

• The Incident: On September 2, 2025, a U.S. military operation struck a boat in the Caribbean suspected of trafficking drugs. After the initial strike, two people were seen as survivors in the water.
• The Order: Admiral Bradley, who was the commander of the Joint Special Operations Command at the time, reportedly told officials on a secure call that the survivors were still legitimate targets because they could theoretically call for a rescue of themselves and their cargo. He then ordered a second strike that killed them.
• Chain of Command: The White House has defended the actions as lawful, stating that Admiral Bradley was acting "well within his authority and the law" in conducting a "lethal, kinetic strike".

Sorry for two responses to the same post.

 

[j-mac]

To make sure they are reminded. After all, you could have some criminal puppet Seal Admiral, taking and/or passing along totally, blatantly illegal orders like, killing survivors of military attacks, in the water, clinging to wreckage for their life.
Pete Hegseth has stated that U.S. military personnel should not follow unlawful orders from their commander-in-chief, emphasizing that there are consequences for carrying out such orders. This stance aligns with military law, which obligates service members to disobey illegal directives.

Newsweek U.S. Senate

Bet you feel kind of duped now don’t you?

 

[tahuyaman]

It has been verified, the Admiral did order the 2nd attack, knowing survivors were in the water.

Survivors who were on a radio communicating with their organization’s leaders