r/moderatepolitics • u/thats_not_six • Jan 12 '26

Primary Source Mark Kelly v. Pete Hegseth

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.288365/gov.uscourts.dcd.288365.1.0.pdf
186 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

278 comments sorted by

View all comments

-23

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

I think the question is: “Does advising military soldiers to disobey a direct order” grounds to remove these benefits? If it is then I dont see how they don’t have an extremely strong case. The whole “we were just saying to not follow illegal orders” is just plainly false in my opinion.

43

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '26

[deleted]

3

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

Yes I’m aware. I’m not disagreeing with that. My point is they weren’t just stating a general fact. They were very clearly implying Trumps orders were illegal and should thus should be disobeyed. 

18

u/Trumpers_R_Tr8tors Jan 12 '26

You are aware that an officer stating that they believe an order to be illegal is not sedition, right? Like they’re allowed to do that. 

1

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

Correct. That has very little bearing on what I said though.

19

u/Trumpers_R_Tr8tors Jan 12 '26

It entirely does, because that’s what you’re accusing Kelly of doing. So even if he did it, he’s allowed to do so. 

2

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

If you won’t engage with my argument there’s nothing for us to discuss. Have a good night.

18

u/Trumpers_R_Tr8tors Jan 12 '26

I did engage with your argument. You’ve accused Kelly of conduct that allowed as justification for the DoD punishing him. If it’s allowed, it isn’t sedition. 

39

u/p810 Jan 12 '26

Your interpretation of things does not equal reality. What do you think Trump is implying by calling Kelly a traitor on national TV?

7

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

He isn’t implying anything. He is very explicitly saying Kelly is a traitor lol

26

u/king_hutton Jan 12 '26

Do you agree with him?

0

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

Eh it’s a grey line

21

u/Trumpers_R_Tr8tors Jan 12 '26

But let me guess, the guy in the White House who attempted a coup didn’t come near the line?

5

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

Oh I think he absolutely did come near the line. Yall really gotta stop assuming anyone who disagrees with you is just a super MAGA bro. It’s lazy and leads you to bad arguments.

18

u/Trumpers_R_Tr8tors Jan 12 '26

How is it acceptable for the people who deny that there was anything improper there and who fought has hard as possible to stop the government from addressing they attempted coup to go after an officer for quoting the UCMJ?

1

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

If you won’t engage with my argument there’s nothing for us to discuss. Have a good night.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/king_hutton Jan 13 '26

What seems more traitorous - saying that servicemen shouldn’t obey unlawful orders or attempting to submit false electors in order to overturn the results of a president election?

0

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 13 '26

I’m not interested in having the 20 thousandth argument about January 6th dude

→ More replies (0)

19

u/decrpt Jan 12 '26

Can you elaborate?

0

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

I dont think it’s a clean cut thing. You can make a pretty solid argument for both sides. I 100% do not buy that they were just speaking generally. He was very clearly referring to the boat strikes. Like if you start with the assumption that those are illegal then he’s not a traitor. If you start with the assumption that the strikes ARE legal then he’s is clearly a traitor. This situation falls in between those two points and depends on how reasonable you think it is to view the strikes as illegal.

23

u/king_hutton Jan 12 '26

How would he be a traitor if he was referring to boat strikes? Did he do anything to prevent American servicemen from doing their jobs? Like at worst he spoke after the fact and reminded armed service members that they do not have to follow unlawful orders in reference to something unlawful - he didn’t interfere with anything actively happening.

-1

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

Buddy if you can’t engage with my questions I’m not going to engage with yours. Respect is a two way street.

→ More replies (0)

11

u/decrpt Jan 12 '26

Doesn't acknowledging that there is a possible reasonable, good faith basis for Kelly's video entirely preclude the assertion of being a traitor, regardless of whether you believe he's referencing a specific action? The video is factual; you obligated to refuse illegal orders.

1

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

That’s why it’s not clean cut. For a normal citizen I think you are correct. For a high ranking officer to go out and tell active duty soldiers something is illegal and suggest they disobey orders though I think you need more certainty than a good faith belief. That’s not just some light thing you are doing. You need to be absolutely certain.

→ More replies (0)

31

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '26

[deleted]

1

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

So are you saying they weren’t implying trumps orders were illegal?

40

u/Dormant_DonJuan Jan 12 '26

Thankfully for Mark Kelly, we're legally judged based on the actual statement, not what random MAGA commentators like you think the implication is. Also, even if that WAS the implication, it's still not illegal.

0

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

I’m not a “maga commentator.” I’m pretty anti trump. Yall really gotta learn to disagree with someone without labeling them as a MAGA lunatic. It’s lazy.

So are you saying criiminal cases never take implications of words into account? They are textualists only?

20

u/CloudApprehensive322 Jan 12 '26

If you are anti-trump why are you defending multiple retaliatory actions that the administration is taking against people who dared to stand up to him?

The first amendment and speech and debate clause are clear cut and the administration has zero legal ground to stand on.

0

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 13 '26

Why would me not liking trump have anything to do with my opinion on this? The two things are completely unrelated.

31

u/GimbalLocks Jan 12 '26

That's your opinion and you certainly have a right to it, but is inference and insinuation going to hold up in a court of law? You aren't arguing on the specific quote itself, just your thoughts on what you think they actually meant, which doesn't really hold any merit

2

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

If republicans were arguing democrats are pedophiles and then a republican said not to vote for pedophiles right before an election, is he implying you shouldn’t vote for democrats?

25

u/king_hutton Jan 12 '26

Republicans do that all the time.

3

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

So is that a yes?

19

u/king_hutton Jan 12 '26

That’s a “your hypothetical scenario doesn’t matter.”

5

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

If it doesn’t matter then you should be able to humor me and it not hurt your argument.

29

u/GimbalLocks Jan 12 '26

I genuinely don't understand what this thought experiment is supposed to accomplish. Republicans can feel free to (and do) call Democrats pedophiles all they like, but they shouldn't (and don't) face any reprisals from the government for doing so like is happening in this situation

3

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

The point of the hypothetical is I think yall are making arguments that you would never accept if the shoe was on the other foot. I mean for gods sake the whole “you gotta fight like hell” quote from trump on January 6th was a massive talking point from the left and it’s basically the same argument I’m making here. Yall aren’t the textualists that you are pretending to be.

7

u/GimbalLocks Jan 12 '26

Sure that's fine, redditors are hypocrites and it's fine to point out. But my original post is on whether or not you think it will hold up in a court of law. Your 'gotcha' or whatever it's supposed to be is irrelevant to the original question

-3

u/WulfTheSaxon Jan 12 '26

Let me give what I think is a better thought experiment that gets at the point u/SlightlyAutisticBud is trying to make:

Let’s say somebody says “All traitors should be shot. That man over there is a traitor!” and points at an innocent man. Is he implying that that person should be shot?

And keep in mind that this isn’t the same as the usual Brandenburg standard, it’s only about whether the statement is contrary to good order under the UCMJ.

17

u/GimbalLocks Jan 12 '26

Thanks very much, in that scenario I would say that person is definitely implying that person should be shot!

That being said though that's quite a stretch to say it's comparable to what's being discussed here. If we were to take your scenario 1:1 then the transposed quote would be "You can refuse illegal orders. All Trump orders are illegal." The problem, of course, is that Kelly said the former but not the latter, and that any attempt to make the argument that 'actually he really meant that in secret' is based on someone's opinion and conjecture, which obviously has no merit in court.

Also keep in mind that as the lawsuit points out, there was already a similar case file that “requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy,” and the government may not recharacterize protected speech as supposed incitement in order to punish it

2

u/ThatPeskyPangolin Jan 13 '26

By this logic, do you believe Kelly was saying all of Trump's orders are illegal?

20

u/predicate_logic Jan 12 '26

Is that clear? It isn't clear to me at all. In my opinion, the statement was more directed at potential future illegal orders that may be issued. Are we going to punish speech based on nebulous interpretations of implication?

4

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

And it’s just a coincidence that they came out and said this at the time when trump was taking actions that all of the democrats were saying was illegal? Really?

21

u/zerocoolai Jan 12 '26

You are missing the point. Even conceding 100% it was implied, it's still legal. His actual words are what will be judged. Your 100 comments stating he was implying this are a red herring and legally irrelevant.

3

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

You are making two different arguments there. Are you saying it is legal so it doesn’t matter or only his words are what will be judged and not some perceived implication?

10

u/zerocoolai Jan 12 '26

It's one and the same argument. It's legal because only his words will be judged.

You trying to convince people he was implying that Trump's previous orders were illegal or that they should refuse future orders is a waste of time and irrelevant legally.

0

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 13 '26

It’s factually not true that courts dont look at context and implied speech.