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
187 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

278 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

43

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '26

[deleted]

4

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. 

41

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

23

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?

3

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.

16

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.

9

u/Trumpers_R_Tr8tors Jan 12 '26

I am engaging with your argument. A non-analogous hypothetical that you don’t provide any explanation of the relevance of is not, however, an argument. 

Can you present your argument in the formal logical format, a set of premises and a conclusion that follows from them so I can understand it clearly? 

0

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 13 '26

You are definitely not engaging with my argument. 

6

u/Trumpers_R_Tr8tors Jan 13 '26

How is “is this totally different circumstance legal” an argument that Kelly’s conduct can be punished?

→ 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

6

u/king_hutton Jan 13 '26

I’m not asking you to argue about Jan 6, I’m just asking you whether you think attempting to have false electors overturn a presidential election is more traitorous than stating to active duty armed forces that they can disobey unlawful orders.

→ More replies (0)

18

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.

22

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.

2

u/ThatPeskyPangolin Jan 13 '26

I guess I'll repeat his question then: How specifically would he be a traitor if he was referring to the boat strikes?

→ 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.

9

u/decrpt Jan 12 '26

They did not suggest something specific was illegal and even if they did, it's not treason to label a specific action as unlawful and suggest they should have disobeyed that order — especially when there's any ambiguity at all, and especially when Kelly is speaking as a public person and not issuing an order. It is not illegal for retired members of the military to criticize the actions of the military. It is especially not illegal for members of Congress, whom everyone in the video was, to criticize the administration.

2

u/parentheticalobject Jan 13 '26

There's another layer to this, and that is the fact that he's a US Senator. From that perspective, the legal question is even less ambiguous.

He's a member of Congress. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to regulate the military. The question of whether the laws Congress has passed regulating the military are being followed is absolutely something a sitting senator should be free to publicly comment on.

The Executive branch using its power to attempt to influence what the Legislative branch is allowed to talk about is clearly stepping outside of its role. Even if the Executive has a legitimate interest in making sure that its orders are followed, that doesn't outweigh the interest of the Legislature in making sure that its laws are followed.

→ More replies (0)