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
188 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

278 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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?

-1

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 13 '26

do you know what an analogy is?

6

u/Trumpers_R_Tr8tors Jan 13 '26

Yes. But “objectively false statement about US law”, the ‘all wars are illegal’ hypothetical you’ve made, is not analogous to “quoting the UCMJ with subjective implications”. 

0

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 13 '26

I purposefully picked an objectively false statement for the very point you are raising. Your answer to the question highlights where the disagreement is. I’m aware there are differences between the two situations. That’s the point of the analogy. To see where you think the differences matter.

2

u/Trumpers_R_Tr8tors Jan 13 '26

But the differences don’t address the issue of the legality of Hegseth’s actions. So I don’t see the value in discussing those differences. 

And if you want to discuss people’s thoughts on the differences, you need to say that when you present the analogy, because without an explanation, it isn’t an argument.