Trump is trying to silence me': Sen. Mark Kelly speaks out about Trump and Hegseth's threats
By: Senator Mark Kelly
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Transcript
(formatted by ChatGPT)
Good afternoon everybody. Seems like most of you guys are here. Um, and thank you for taking the time. Uh, let me get started.
So, throughout his entire career in business, reality TV, and politics, Donald Trump has had one and only one play, bullying his opponents into silence. He did it as a failed casino owner who bankrupted his properties and screwed over his contractors. He did it as a reality TV host known for firing people. And he's done it as president who tries every day to intimidate people with no regards for the rights or well-being of the American people.
I'll say this for the guy. While he's never seemed to do much else right, for most of Donald Trump's career, bullying people has worked out for him. But not now. Because I won't let it happen. The American people won't let it happen.
President Trump is trying to silence me, threatening to kill me for saying what is true. And he sent his Secretary of Defense after me. And it's not going to work.
Here's how we got here. A week and a half ago, Senator Slaken and I along with others who also served in the military and the intelligence communities, we released a video with a simple message to service members that they must refuse illegal orders. Nothing was controversial about that. Everyone must follow the law. No one may break the law.
This is pretty basic stuff. Seeing that video, here's how any other president would have responded. They would have said two words, of course. But that's not how this president responded.
We become so accustomed to Donald Trump's behavior that it is worth emphasizing. The President of the United States said that two US Senators and four members of the House of Representatives should be arrested, hanged, executed for something we said, for something that is true.
My family knows the cost of political violence. My wife Gabby was shot in the head and nearly died while speaking with her constituents. The president should understand this too. He has been the target of political violence himself.
The Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, Melissa Hortman, and her husband were murdered in their home this year. The Governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, had his house firebombed this year. Then Charlie Kirk was assassinated at Utah Valley University, a place I visited just a few weeks ago with Republican Senator John Curtis.
Faced with a wave like this, every other president we have ever had in the history of this nation would have tried to heal the country. But we all know Donald Trump. He uses every single opportunity to divide us. And that's dangerous.
The president's words carry tremendous weight. People listen to him and he knows that. And that's exactly why he does what he does. He makes these threats to silence people. And if that doesn't work, he abuses his power to intimidate people.
And with the consent of Republicans in the United States Senate, he has surrounded himself with people like the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegsath, who will do whatever he says with no question no matter what. Trump and Hegsth, they care more about publicity than they do about the rule of law.
That's how I ended up finding out via a tweet that the Secretary of Defense was ordering an investigation into me. The same Secretary of Defense who has from the moment he was nominated been historically unqualified for this position. The same Secretary of Defense who is reported to have ordered a second strike to kill shipwreck survivors in the Caribbean.
If there is anyone who needs to answer questions in public and under oath, it is Pete Hgsath. It's a dangerous moment for the United States of America when the president and his loyalists use every lever of power to silence United States senators for speaking up.
But we all know that this isn't about me and it's not about the others in that video. They're trying to send a message to retired service members, to government employees, to members of the military, to elected officials, and to all Americans who are thinking about speaking up. You better keep your mouth shut or else.
This has been a singular focus of President Trump's second term. Not addressing costs, not creating jobs, intimidating people, and going after the people he views as his political opponents.
He's done it to companies. You better write a check to build my ballroom or I might not approve your merger. He's done it with universities. You better fire your president or I'll pull your research funding. He's even done it to late night hosts. You better not make jokes that I do not like or I'll get you taken off the air and I'm going to take your company's broadcast license.
And he does it every week with Republicans in the House and the Senate. You better tow the party line or I'll make sure you never get reelected.
Folks, this comes at a cost. And not only to American companies, colleges, and comedians. It damages every American's freedom of speech and the balance of powers that form the foundation of our democracy.
Because when Republicans in Congress are too afraid to disagree with this president, it means that his bad ideas go unchallenged. He has slapped reckless tariffs on countries across the globe, skyrocketing the cost of everything from groceries to school supplies.
Republicans historically, well, at least a year ago, they hated tariffs. But when it comes to voting to undo them, they are too afraid of Donald Trump. So Americans pay more for just about everything because of spineless politicians.
It's the same with health care costs. There are Republicans in the House and the Senate who really want to do something to prevent these health care premiums from spiking for millions of Americans. The solutions are simple, but President Trump says he doesn't want to, so nothing happens. Nothing except a government shutdown.
It goes on and on. The president has gone too far. Everybody needs to wake up. The occupant of the Oval Office is ignorant to the Constitution and has no regard for the rule of law.
Trying to silence me in proposing to court-martial me in threatening to kill me for fighting back when our democracy demands that we must fight back. President Trump has crossed the line.
In this time, it's not going to work. I will not be intimidated by this president. I am not going to be silenced by this president or the people around him because I've given too much in service to this country to back down to this guy.
In 1991, when Donald Trump was driving the Taj Mahal casino into bankruptcy, I was getting shot at over Iraq and Kuwait. In 2001, after Donald Trump said that the collapse of the Twin Towers meant he now owned the tallest skyscraper in Manhattan, I was carrying flags honoring 9/11 victims into space on a rocket ship.
In 2003, when Donald Trump was writing birthday greetings to the monster Jeffrey Epstein, I was the first on the scene to recover the bodies of my fellow astronauts who died when Space Shuttle Columbia exploded during re-entry in 2011.
When Trump was hosting a reality show and peddling conspiracy theories against President Barack Obama, I was sitting next to my wife's hospital bed as she recovered from a gunshot wound to the head.
My point is this. I've been through a lot worse in service to my country. The president and Pete Hegsath are not going to silence me. They aren't going to keep me from speaking out, and they're not going to keep me from doing my job.
Enough of the bullying, enough of the intimidation, enough of the threats, enough of your nonsense doesn't help anyone in our country afford their groceries or pay their medical bills. And it erodes the rights of every American.
My job is to fight for them, to stand up for the Constitution, and nothing is going to stop me from doing my job.
Tags
Who is online
102 visitors
Indeed.
trump has put kelly in the running for 2028 ...
happy holidays maga!
Compare this serious adult with the buffoon occupying the office of the presidency.
There is not a sane comparison that can be made. Trump is a bad joke. Nobodys' laughing anymore.
They are actually beginning to realize and accept they've been taken by a POS potUS.
Tookn long enough. The GOP should be left to die, as their need and attempted grip to stay in power, has cost US A ll too fcknb much
kelly provoked the moron in chief into a rage of verbal retribution by connecting the dots on the ukranian peace plan written by russia for russia and previously handed to trump's incompetent sycophants, and they are in russia yet again today to try and negotiate another, that russia won't agree to, because putin can see how weak and ineffective trump is now.
I'd vote for him
I'm not sure that Kelly has the best profile... but YES! I'd vote for him, too.
Same here!
A brave, smart, honorable person in the oval office would be a welcome change.
those requirements exclude every maga republican in office now, or planning to run in the future ...
there is no comparison ...
nope, no squid trump-splanation to see here ...
Do you think it a coincidence that Kelly and 5 others got out in front of a story that the Washington Post eventually ran which was based on two unnamed sources?
Hegseth Ordered Lethal Boat Strike but Not the Killing of Survivors, Officials Say - The New York Times
"The Times’ Charlie Savage, Julian E. Barnes, Eric Schmitt, and John Ismay reported that Hegseth “ordered a strike that would kill the people on the boat and destroy the vessel and its purported cargo of drugs,” according to five anonymous U.S. officials. According to the report, Admiral Frank M. Bradley ordered the “several follow-up strikes that killed the initial survivors and sank the disabled boat.” Hegseth “did not give any further orders to him,” according to the anonymous sources."
WaPo's Hegseth Hoax Is So Weak Even NYT Can See Through It
Do you think that the 6 progressives are trying to undermine the chain of command because they hate Trump?
Should they not be tried for treason?
No, but Trump should.
Incredible. What a delusional perspective on reality.
Do you support a PotUS calling for the execution of politicians for stating that the military is obliged to not follow illegal orders?
Hegseth has a history of sharing classified information on unsecure phones and apps, why should his further incompetence shock anyone?
It is the reason the country is in so much trouble. Unless it is countered and overcome, that delusional perspective is going to lead to the destruction of American democracy and the American way of life.
1) To this day neither the 6 traitors nor you can name the illegal order.
2) Those who are convicted of treason do face the death penalty.
3) Do you realize the mayhem they could cause in the military, all because they hate Trump?
The only thing facing destruction is an evil ideology.
You know nothing about the military so I not so kindly suggest you just stay silent on the issue
you think it a coincidence that Kelly and 5 others got out in front of a story that the Washington Post eventually ran which was based on two unnamed sources?
they never feel the strings in their backs. Kelly, out of the blue, tells the millitary not to follow illegal orders and then, amazingly, this story leaks with the spin that orders are illegal. Imagine not seeing the blatant coordination
The summary execution of suspected drug traffickers without due process is a violation of both US and international law.
I’ll take you seriously on this when you point out your paints condemning Obama and Biden for executing foreigners without due process of law.
its just amazing to me to watch people flip from “war crime” to totally acceptable depending on who the president is. [deleted][✘]
[deleted][✘]
Are you asking Sean? Do you think he's an expert in military operations? What was it he did during the Cold War?
Was I addressing Sean? Did the sentence end with a question mark?
Not assuming he is.
Unlike you, I'm not making it a personal thing.
If he's not an expert why direct that question at him?
A blatant lie! Here is a response I made TO YOU in another article.
You wrote:
I replied:
Lying is a despicable tactic. It is an admission that you know Trump is wrong but are compelled to try to defend him no matter what ... even stooping to lying.
Alternate reality. You call citing the truth a traitorous act. Here is one of several authoritative sources: “ Members of the armed forces are bound to obey only lawful orders. They must not obey orders that are patently illegal. ”
This is yet another sickening display of defending Trump no matter how outrageous. These are patriots following the law and speaking the truth. Trump is yet again on the wrong side of truth and decency — qualities that a genuine conservative would support.
So where is the treason, much less the conviction? The PotUS should not be carelessly talking about executing politicians merely because they stated military law. What drives you to bend over backwards to try to defend this irresponsible lying asshole?
Mayhem by following the law??? Get a grip.
Why are you so worried about it? It's not like you have attempted to answer the question.
I'm pretty sure it's been outlined by Kelly and several people already since Congress is having bi-partisan meetings on it.
Which is why we shouldn't be tossing inflammatory language around...
Have you served? Unless you have, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Yes.... The self destruction of right wing populism.
What question? All you have are rants
The question you have been crying about all morning.
The question I think he's referring to might be:
It's a hilarious question since it's asking if we should accuse an actual military veteran of treason because he recommends not following illegal orders, all while those accusing him are actively supporting Trump and Witkoff selling out our allies to Russia. What a fucking time to live in. I never thought I'd see the day when conservative Americans would be essentially bending over to suck the Russian Presidents balls. And for them to be calling loyal patriotic Americans 'traitors' simply because they suggest we follow the law is beyond the pale.
Thanks for explaining it to me in a sentence structure that makes sense
I never thought they could be so flexible....
It is amazing what alleged 'Patriotic' citizens have come to define Patriotism as, and asz not
It saddens and disgusts me
i'll go with the latter
no worries. after we take maga scum out of office, we'll use their SCOTUS rulings to get them out of america ...
Trumpism, white supremacy, "Christian nationalism", fascism. The evil ideology.
Trump, Vance, Johnson, Bondi, Hegseth, Noem... Not an exhaustive list... Kash Patel, Vought, Stephen Miller...
Dude. WTF.
Of course not. They posted a video. Seriously. What on earth.
Surely that's not even mildly surprising at this point.
Hi TiG - Just a nit-picky point: The FM27-10 Manual you linked does not actually say that last part of your quote which I high-lighted in red . It only says in section IV - Part 509 b. the following:
In fact, UCMJ Articles 90 and 92 refer to the duty of the service member to follow all lawful orders and outlines in great detail the consequences of not following them. They do NOT specifically say that they must not obey those orders that are patently illegal . In fact, part 16 of UCMJ Article 90 reads:
My question would be, in the examples that you provided in your comment #1.2.15 , or even in the example of firing upon the alleged drug boats off the shore of Venezuela, is it reasonable for the average subordinate to assume the order might be unlawful, particularly given that the need to rigidly follow orders is drummed into them from the outset of boot camp? Certainly an order to kill unarmed civilians would be obviously patently illegal to most, but military orders like those given in the recent examples might not be as readily identified as unlawful. In fact, the UCMJ code makes it clear that the lawfulness of an order is to be determined by a military judge, not the subordinate service member.
I think it is more accurate to say that a servicemember CAN disobey orders that are unlawful, not that they MUST. It would be a bit much to expect all of them to fully understand the Constitution and the law well enough to make that determination as the orders are being barked in their ear. What is patently obvious to some, might not be to all, especially when they are trained on the "inference of lawfulness" of their orders.
I'm in total agreement, however, that those in the position of issuing ANY orders should be damn well sure that those orders are legal.
Yeah, nitpicky.
If a member of the military is bound to obey ONLY lawful orders that means they are bound to NOT obey unlawful orders.
While it is likely to be very difficult for a member of the military (especially those who are not officers) to distinguish between a lawful and unlawful order, that does not change the rule nor does it immunize the member of the military. It is unfair, but it is also reality.
Further, an order from a PotUS or Secretary of Defense will be carried out by a general; that general is the key individual to refuse to carry out an unlawful order. They are also expected to understand military code.
Bottom line, Trump is wrong. These individuals correctly described military code.
I would focus on the fact that the PotUS irresponsibly used emotive language that puts these 6 individuals in danger simply because he did not like the truth that they spoke. That should be the concern.
Exactly.
Well no, that is not what was written in the code, and not what that means. That is my point. That puts all the onus on the service member. The code actually says:
That to cap off the discussion about following orders and whether a superior order constitutes a valid defense in the case of an alleged war crime. It means they only have to follow lawful orders, but it does not in any way suggest what a service member is bound to with respect to an unlawful order, especially when it might not have been known to that member to be unlawful. Saying that a member is not bound to follow an unlawful order is much different than saying the service member is bound to NOT obey unlawful orders.
No argument from me there, such officers should have a much better grasp on the Constitution, the law, and military code. And while I disagree that the letter of the military code BINDS them to disobey an unlawful order, they most certainly should. And accordingly the "I was given an order" defense would not hold water for an officer who should definitely know better.
Indeed, and it most certainly is a major concern, as is all the other vitriolic shit that comes out of Trump's mouth.
If one is bound to follow ONLY lawful orders then they are NOT bound to follow unlawful orders. The logic is indisputable. The word 'only' is crucial here.
If one is NOT bound to follow unlawful orders then if they do so they are breaking the law. In other words, if it is their choice to NOT follow an unlawful order and they do so anyway, then they have broken the law.
I would think one would have a very difficult time showing the military code supports a member of the military to willingly break the law when they had a choice to NOT do so.
And again, yes this places the military agents in a precarious position, but that does not change the reality of the code. The six individuals were speaking the truth and Trump was entirely out of line (and dangerous) as usual.
Yeah that is what I said. They are not bound to follow unlawful orders, but they are not bound to disobey them either, especially if they don't know for sure if those orders are unlawful.
That is true, but if they did not know that the order was unlawful, the military code is saying that this can be used in their defense if they inadvertently followed an unlawful order.
This from the source you linked in #1.2.15
I never said the code would support those who willingly break the law. I said that I think it is more accurate to say that the code makes clear that a service member CAN disobey orders that are unlawful, not that they MUST, particularly if they don't know if the order is unlawful.
I thought it was a standard example that a shipwreck survivor was not supposed to be harmed ?
Perhaps. Not sure how those who carried out the mission were trained on that sort of thing or what the exact circumstances and orders were. Adm. Frank Bradley is supposed to meet with Congress tomorrow and provide a more accurate account of what happened. I'd like to hear what he says before forming an opinion on that.
I think we will all be soon better informed.
Obviously, if a member of the military does not know an order is unlawful, they will naturally assume it is lawful. As I noted earlier, this places all military personnel in a precarious situation because their commanding officer could order them to do something illegal and, unbeknownst to them, expose them to consequences. But the good part is that the order must be obviously illegal ... easily known as such to the actor.
So let's focus on the case where the order is obviously illegal to make this clear.
The MUST disobey the order part comes from the fact that military personnel MUST act lawfully :
In short, breaking the law has military consequences. One MUST NOT break the law.
If a military person knows an order is unlawful, then they would willingly (since they are not required to follow the order) break the law if they followed the order. Breaking the law is not allowed by military code therefore they MUST not follow the order.
To wit, a patently illegal order must not be followed because it would be a crime to do so. Following such an order exposes the actor to military consequences.
And @Freewill -
From a lawyer that defends military members...
And
Exactly
Agreed. This was part of my point.
Fair enough, I see your point. Thanks for the discussion.
Yeah, fuck the First Amendment. Death to dissenters! That's what patriots want!
Jesus fucking Christ.
Thanks evilone. It is the Important Note in your source's quote that gets to the heart of my concern.
Do we honestly think that every service member will have a firm grasp on what is "manifestly lawful"? And since many, if not most, orders (especially those that might be unlawful) are delivered in the heat of the moment, how can a service member possibly have time to seek counsel before following the order?
It took Federal Courts to determine this year that two of Trump's orders were unlawful per TiG's examples in comment #1.2.15. The military code itself stipulates that, "The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge." How is a military subordinate trained to obey orders that must be presumed lawful supposed determine unlawfulness on his/her own, or seek the counsel necessary to determine it, in the heat of a battle or operation? Indeed, I agree with TiG's statement that, "this places all military personnel in a precarious situation".
They will not. But the higher the rank the more likely they would know.
So, for example, Admiral Bradley almost certainly knew that a second strike to kill the two survivors of the first attack was illegal. If the circumstances are as cut & dried as it seems, he is in trouble and so are his direct reports who should also have known that the order for the second strike was illegal.
But we do not know all the details so this is just speculation.
I know, it just boggles the mind how core conservative principles are cast aside to support and defend Trump.
maga!
An order to shoot defenselss POWs would obviously be unlawful. (Unless one is so unflinchingly authoritarian that any and all orders are necessarily "lawful". Hegseth??)
Shooting defenseless civilians, ditto.
Shooting defenseless survivors of a preceding attack, clinging to the remants of their boat....
As a service member for ten years I can honestly saw we don't expect privates and seamen to understand which orders may be unlawful - with the exceptions of those listed in the above posted example. Those are covered in multiple training sessions.
Part of leadership is further training, and part of that training is precisely this topic. The higher up the chain of command the more training you get.
This is my particular problem with Hagseth changing the messaging and culture of the military - instead of a peace keeping force we now have a 'kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out' force.
pete's next tattoo will probably be an expiration date ...
No Sandy, these weren't six democrat congressmen & women struggling with their conscious. This is about a carefully staged disobey message in which 6 of the nation's lawmakers told the military to start second guessing the commands they were given. They couldn't name a so-called illegal order. Exactly what order were they telling the miliary not to follow?
It wasn't dissent. It was an effort at destabilization.
Military lawyers are now considering if a US Senator be recalled to active duty for calling for insubordination?
I say yes.
That's no surprise.
Americans who actually support American values are anti-authoritarian. Our nation was founded on the idea that we would have no kings whose orders we were legally forced to obey, even if they were morally reprehensible. Hell, even most monarchies at the time of our founding were limited by some sort of parliamentary body. Intelligent people recognized the dangers of absolute power, and rejected it.
You'd take us back to the days before even hereditary monarchs were held accountable to the law.
Those people you call traitors were supporting the UCMJ and American principles. The idea that doing so could be considered treason is a betrayal of those principles.
Every far left talking point.
If there was ever an authoritarian, it was whoever pulled Biden's strings.
Those people you call traitors were supporting the UCMJ and American principles.
Do you even know what that is? When Gen Mark Miley called the President a "fascist," he was in violation of the UCMJ. He should have been Court Martialed on the spot.
Or the name of his prison lover?
Sandy is "far left"??!! Dear God...
I sincerely hope you don't actually think that... that your fascist lies tumble automatically from your keyboard, without any input from your brain.
From my observation, everyone and everything to the left of some is immediately conceived as 'far left'.
No, Vic, they did not name an illegal order; that does not mean they could not name one. I named two for you several times now. You are ignoring this and continuing with your nonsense.
These six individuals were stating the truth about military code because we have a rogue PotUS surrounded by sycophant drones who have and will likely continue to issue illegal orders (both military and executive).
And, yet again, here is what I posted in a response to you in November and again this month and now a third time:
The Constitution and the freedoms enshrined within it are "far left"? To King George, I'm sure they were. In a modern democracy, they're certainly not.
It's also no surprise that you can't abide criticism of your authoritarian leader.
The wonder is why you have such a strong emotional attachment to Trump above your country and its principles.
Hoping Vic does not have the same nickname of that of one Slick Willie....
because hitler and mussolini are dead ...
Correct. To the extent any of them have any conscience, there was no struggle involved.
No.
This was political theatre. Full stop. This was a carefully staged "vote for us" message appealing to the pervasive self-righteousness of the liberal base.
Exactly. Which is why they oppose things like vaccine mandates so strongly. Or why they oppose terminating an employee for refusal to comply with gender ideology.
I think you may have that quite the wrong way round. It's a standing joke at this point.
What vaccine mandates? The recent measles outbreaks are evidence that vaccination is not mandated.
Seems to me like you're reaching for a false equivalence. Or trolling, as usual.
The word 'some' was an abstract reference to certain individuals I have in mind. When certain individuals refer to virtually everything to their left as 'far left' they are illustrating what I observe.
Insane comment.
In other words, Miley should have been Court Martial for speaking THE TRUTH. That's interesting since you have commented in the past that you would support fascism in America.
That's profoundly stupid... but true.
“A rejection of absolutism, in all its forms, may sometimes slip into moral relativism or even nihilism, an erosion of values that hold society together, but for most of our history it has encouraged the very process of information gathering, analysis, argument, and persuasion which allows us to make better, if not perfect, choices – not only about the means to our ends, but also the ends themselves.”
― Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
Did you miss covid? Or have you just forgotten?
You don't remember people being denied access to concerts or restaurants or bars if they failed to divulge HIPAA protected information? You don't remember the "Key to NYC" or other similar programs in LA, Boston or Seattle?
"False equivalence" is a term liberals use to pretend they don't do the same shit they accuse everybody else of doing, often more egregiously.
"Trolling" is the term they use when you point out shit they find inconvenient.
But let's circle back to your statement. "Americans who actually support American values are anti-authoritarian." That's very true. I said to Buzz not long ago that if there is a unified American ethos, it starts with "you can't tell me what to do".
But all too often we see people claim to oppose "authoritarianism" when they really just oppose the other side of the aisle and want to feel self-righteous about it. They have no problem with their own political tribe attempting to force compliance.
Oh, so that's what you're calling a mandate? Color me surprised. Is a concert venue a government body? A restaurant?
No?
Did anybody go to jail for not getting the vaccine?
No?
Then it wasn't a mandate.
But you know that, and are trolling.
"I said, watch what you say, or they'll be calling you a radical
A liberal, oh fanatical, criminal."
That should be the theme song around here.
I remember some anti-vax thumpers getting covid and croaking, in the every cloud has a silver lining dept ...
Yes. Absolutely. Just like it's mandatory that you get a license in order to drive a car.
City ordinances are generated by government bodies. NYC, San Francisco, Chicago, LA.... Do you really not remember this?
That's a wild, utterly ridiculous definition that you would not agree to in any other conversation.
Imagine women not being allowed to enter restaurants unless they could produce official proof they were taking hormones to make them less irrational. I think you'd consider that a hormone mandate.
You're just trying (again) to live in denial and pretend Democrats are somehow "anti-authoritarian". Funny how they only seem to be that way when somebody else has authority.
Previous definition of trolling still stands. You just don't like being reminded that liberals are just as dictatorial as everybody else, if not much more so.
No jail, Jack. No mandate.
Last I checked, you are not required to attend concerts or eat out at restaurants.
Nice display of misogyny there.
So first it was just trolling, and now it's misogynistic trolling. Not a good look.
yet, a damn accurate one.
Nice try. That's not how the law sees it. But I guess we'll just ignore that along with anything Democrats ever do wrong.
The irony of that accusation is hilarious. And telling.
I remember Lt. Calley and the massacre of over five hundred unarmed women, children and old men at My Lai in Viet Nam back in 1968. War is hell!
Deflection, and not something for which I have ever advocated. Stop intentionally misstating my position. It's dishonest.
And your trolling was misogynistic.
... not anymore. not with GI joke in charge of the "dept of war" ...
... no, that's on the rooster wearing a swastika tattooed on his ass.
...
Why would he? The SCotUS that he owns declared him to be ABOVE the law.
Later on in the video, when Senator Kelly was answering questions, he offered this:
Franklin my Deer, Trump and he are too stupid and sick to give a FCK
south park completely brutalized pete in their latest episode ...
He should never have been appointed in the first place. The best place for him is in rehab so he can dry out
Very true. And there sits the second most incompetent and useless person in the Trump administration, Trump being the first,
I for one feel insulted that the MAGA folks who are now holding America hostage, and being so stupid and putting our outstanding men and women in uniform in unnecessary and useless danger just to feed their greed and repulsive arrogance.
If Hogsass and the one who thinks he should be a contender for our next President, actually had to face the same needless threat our real military personnel do, they would seriously dirty their pants.
And the fact that so many of the MAGA side folks are beginning to see the light, and the lies, is somewhat encouraging.
the maga learning curve seriously lags behind ...
IMHO, Trump picked the most inept and incompetent people for his Cabinet so as to make himself, even more inept and incompetent, in order to make himself look like a real leader.
I said it once, and I'll say it again, that it looks like Trump won't last till the end if his term. And he has no one but himself to blame.
he only hires incompetent morons happily willing to abandon their own morals and patriotism in a demonstration of loyalty to an unamerican criminal fraud, traitor, and child molester ...
It's how he judges their degree of loyalty: they must be willing to abandon all morality.
Trump is elevating Kelly's personae even farther, and it was already hero status.
Kelly doesn't waste hours everyday pancaking his face orange or getting his combover glued in place.
He ain't pretty but he has The Right Stuff.
He doesn't need to be pretty. I like him because of his brains
That's exactly why rightwing conservatives hate him. "He sounds like some higher edumacated libral!"...
The sad thing with Kelly is that, as a Captain, he would have had them prosecuted under the UCMJ under, at a minimum, Article 86, 89, 90, 94 and 134.
Kelly is a circus clown and a hypocrite.
You don't know that.
Then he was a really shitty Captain.
He wouldn't have prosecuted sailors for disobeying illegal orders
Legal orders? He would have most definitely because that was part of his duties
Are the "illegal orders" in the room with us?
Ever been briefed before a holiday or the 101 Days of Summer? It was mostly "don;t do this and don;t do that"
He's giving the troops a warning. I bet you were given plenty of warnings
And I bet most of us know where any warnings against their own beliefs were flushed down the outhouse.
Nobody is going to buy such obvious bullshit. Clearly you have nothing to offer, so you instead make up absurd claims.
I have nothing that aligns with your opinionated view.
and your view is NOT opinionated...?
Don't follow illegal orders.
Where is the threat ? Where is the treason ?
It is a commonsense reminder so as not to end up in a binder, cause that is where an Admiral now does sit, due to a potUS and a DOD head, both full of shit
it violates US law to even suggest to service people that they should violate known illegal orders.
Kelly would make a much, much better president than Trump has. Trump is a serial criminal and scum of the earth and Kelly is a serial hero.
fraud, felon, traitor, rapist and child molester versus decorated veteran USN pilot and US astronaut ...
yeah, that's a real head-scratcher of a decision for most maga ...
a real head-scratcher
that's only B cause Trump is so head and shoulders above the other flakes
Mark Kelly is trying to out-Trump Trump. It's the typical manly-man contest over who has the biggest balls. Navy fliers have to be a little crazy to do their jobs so these sorts of spittle fights aren't unexpected.
That remains to be seen. I don't see it though.
Mark Kelly is not the victim here. Kelly has received far too much public attention to claim he is being silenced. Mark Kelly is an engineer, not a lawyer, so his claims to be a legal authority on military matters is spurious. Mark Kelly didn't rise to the level of military strategic planning and is not qualified to claim that expertise, either. Kelly's job was to do what the man told him to do. Kelly did not rise to his current rank by refusing orders.
Mark Kelly has made himself the target with political stunts and grandstanding. Kelly is employing the same, tired, and increasing irrelevant Democrat playbook of victimhood. Mark Kelly contradicts his claims by standing on the stage in front of reporters.
Mark Kelly's stunts are why Donald Trump gets away with everything. Kelly has no expertise, authority, or power to do anything other than attract attention. And Kelly is certainly not going to do anything that jeopardizes his political career. This the same damned retail politics that's been imposed on voters since Ronald Reagan.
Mark Kelly is all talk, no agenda. Mark Kelly is all whine, no policy. Mark Kelly is all protest, no leadership. Mark Kelly's politics are why the Democratic Party is flailing. Victimhood and grievance may attract attention like a social media influencer but it is not a serious attempt at governing.
Oh, please! Spend some time taking orders from an O-6 then tell me he/she doesn't know a damn thing about legal authority. Or even strategic planning. When you command a unit you better know something about the UCMJ and planning strategy for your unit. That includes medical professionals, engineers, attorneys, supply commanders.
I had a nurse for a commander. I would have followed that woman anywhere
Mark Kelly is a Senator, not a Navy Captain. And a Senator outranks all in military service. Kelly is no longer a rocket jockey. He gave all that up for politics. Kelly has the high rank necessary to directly address illegal orders in the military. Why is Kelly pushing that responsibility down the chain of command to those at the bottom?
Kelly has essentially ordered lower ranking service members to do his job. That's not something a competent leader would do.
The rest of this thread was removed for no value.
Back in my paramedic school days there was an ER Doc that continually pushed me into situations that I hadn't been trained for in my ER rotations. She had me run a code one night and the guy lived. She had me sew a girl's ear back on and I wasn't even trained in suturing (didn't look half bad though.) Of course she always had an experienced ER nurse looking over my shoulder when sending me into the fire. She had a sink or swim policy in her ER even for inexperienced students. Learned more in that rotation than anywhere else including the street. She was an ex-army combat Doc.
maybe she was qualifying you to perform an organ transplant later ...
goddam inpromptu pre-qualifying oral quizzes, feats of strength tests, and primitive mating rituals ...
What >?
Stating his record against Trumps' record is grandstanding ?
Kelly is someone to respect. Trump is someone to detest, and you are failing the de test.
There's a difference between stating a record and parading a record. Especially when that record is paraded to disparage someone else.
Kelly was someone to respect but he gave that up for politics. Now Mark Kelly is just a politician like Trump.
He is being called a traitor by the President worthy of execution, and this corrupt administration is opening an investigation into how they can punish him. Is that not an attempt to silence him? Just because he refuses to be silenced doesn't mean he's not being attacked for merely suggesting our soldiers follow the law.
Do these people not underrstand the simple FACT you state ?
Kelly volunteered to be a target. Kelly encouraged those in the ranks to question orders which challenges the authority of officers and disrupts the chain of command. If the impression is created that a superior is issuing illegal orders, then all orders will be questioned. That erodes morale, unit cohesion, mission performance, and endangers everyone. Noncoms can't get away with the same crap that O-6s can.
The difference between refusing to follow an illegal order and mutiny is rather fuzzy. The stakes are high because its quite possible someone will spend time in US Disciplinary Barracks.
But Kelly doesn't have to worry because he's sitting in a butt embossed leather chair in the Senate Chamber. Kelly is risking nothing with his political stunts. Quite the privileged leader, ain't he?
ezpz, follow an illegal order and hang with the person that gave it ...
I have less than zero interest in listening to political theater from a man who hid in the shadows when his country needed him most.
He had every chance to step forward and take leadership of a collapsing Democratic Party. He had every chance to voice concerns about President Biden's competence to run for re-election. He had every chance to throw his own hat into the ring and offer a legitimate alternative to Donald Trump.
He did fuck all.
He sat on his medals and endorsed Kamala Harris. He knew damned well she was incompetent and he knew damned well there was no way she could win.
Now, he turns out a bullshit political theater video and wants to hide from the things it implied.
He sure the Hell has not done much of anything for my home state of Arizona either.
No of course not because he's a libtard, right?
Any comments on Trump's attacks and threats on Kelly?
Did Kelly say anything that was not true about following illegal orders?
How, exactly, is Kelly the bad guy here?
Your words not mine. Please do not put your words in my mouth.
Kelly is loved by people in the Liberal Democrat bastion metropolitan areas that support him. That is where he concentrates his attentions on. He rarely makes appearances to the conservative rural areas, especially on the border unless as a photo op dog and pony show. Most in my area rarely if ever see him except at election time. Just like the late Raul Grijalva. Both care and cared only about their specific voter base.
So you have no comments on Trump's attacks. Instead of replying to what I asked, you just blast on Kelly.
Okay, I think Trump went overboard on his comments, but I also believe Kelly was wrong to encourage active duty troops to disobey orders of their superiors.
... unlawful orders.
Kelly did not encourage troops to disobey orders; he informed troops that they should not follow unlawful orders. They were quite specific.
Let's be crystal clear and honest Ed. Kelly, et. al., was speaking of unlawful orders. Illegal orders. If a military person follows an order that is knowingly illegal (obviously illegal) they can be tried, found guilty, and punished. Following orders does not protect the military person from legal consequences.
Kelly, et. al., are 100% correct. And this matters because we have a corrupt administration whose modus operandi is to break laws that stand in the way of their desires.
kind of like trump supporting maga scum?
Sorry it took so long to get back on this but what is being missed or ignored is how are you going troops on the front line in a combat situation supposed to determine what constitutes a lawful or unlawful order when split second timing on their part may mean the difference between life or death. I have been in that situation. It was always drilled into us from day one of basic training that you obey your last given order and if you survived, then you can question it and take it to higher authority. I believe that still applies today.
I do not think troops can do that. As I noted elsewhere, the lower the rank, the less likely one can distinguish an illegal order. The more blatant it would have to be (e.g. go murder the women and children non-combatants).
I wrote about this in detail somewhere else.
The key here is that those in higher ranks, especially the highest ranks, need to serve as a check against blatantly illegal orders. They should know to identify a blatantly illegal order and should be the ones to prevent it from being carried out. This not only is good for the nation, but it protects those who serve under them (and carry out the illegal orders).
Please see post # 1.1.10 below.
Correction. 1.1.10 above.
I suspect you mean 7.1.10
[✘]
You are correct. I was typing in a hurry.
As opposed to endorsing Trump??? What do you expect the man to do?
As opposed to Trump??? It was Trump or Harris. You think Trump is more competent than Harris??
Don't buy Trump's bullshit about a landslide. The election was very close. Trump won on the slim margins that tipped the swing states. His low single digit % advantage could have gone either way. He lucked out (and our nation lost in result).
"No way she could win" is clearly not true.
Right? He was supposed to support draft dodging Captain Bone Spurs instead of his own party's nominee. Makes perfect sense. /s
Why would there only be two options?
Recognize the leadership void and step in to fill it.
It could very easily have been "Trump or Kelly".
Not by any metric that matters.
Then think about how easily a centrist war hero astronaut from a border state could have run away with it.
She was a terrible candidate who replaced an even worse candidate. There was no way she was going to win.
Because the choice was between Trump and Harris. There was zero chance for anyone else to be elected PotUS.
How, exactly is that done? If it were so easy why did the GoP wind up nominating and then electing Trump?
Easy to say. But anything is easy to just say. Anyone can make claims. The hard part is making claims that can be backed up with fact and logic.
So you are going to ignore the fact that the swing states were close.
Per ChatGPT:
Show how he would get nominated when the incumbent decided to run for reelection.
And you therefore believe that Trump was a good candidate. The only PotUS in our history who tried to steal a US presidential election, a life-long con-man, a pathological lying narcissist. It was an abject failure of the electorate to give Trump even a second's notice. He was and is an abysmal human being who should have never been even considered for the presidency. The electorate failed miserably.
A good candidate is not defined by who is elected, but rather the quality of the individual and their actions. A profound failure of the electorate does not make someone a good candidate ... it just means that the electorate screwed up.
You're continuing to ignore the point.
"I'm Mark Kelly and I'm running for President".
Yes. You've made a few here and not bothered to use any logic at all.
So you are going to ignore that 1) swing states are always close, that's why they're called "swing states" and 2) Harris lost all of them.
She wasn't the incumbent. She was the candidate nobody wanted, including you.
Ah, we're to the point of the conversation where you've run out of intelligent rebuttals so you pretend I believe things you know I do not in order to have a windmill to joust. Your fixation with Trump is like standing on Juneau street corner in January telling everybody it's cold outside, and then repeating that every 30 seconds. We fucking know already.
If I think a candidate is good, I vote for them. I would have voted for Mark Kelly happily.
The race was between Trump and Harris. Prior to that it was Trump and Biden. There was no room for someone challenging the incumbent.
Ridiculous. As noted, the incumbent was running. There was no realistic chance of prevailing. A strong challenge to Biden would have weakened the D position. I can easily see every potential D candidate opting not to run under those circumstances.
That is your failure to see the facts and logic.
If you comprehend that swing states are close then you should comprehend that they could have swung the other way. Math.
Biden was the incumbent and that is who I was referring to. Obviously.
No, we are at the point where you (as always) lose control of your passive aggression and resort to emotion.
I would have too. But he would first need to run and then be nominated, and that was not going to happen for the reasons I stated. And all the other potentially good candidates likewise did NOT run and were NOT nominated for the same reason. Remember (do not ignore) how political parties work. It is not a simple: I choose to run. The candidate needs support in the party sufficient to buck the incumbent and have the confidence that in the end they will win the nomination. Running against the incumbent only to lose the nomination weakens the incumbent in the general election.
You mean the rationalizations to which you're clinging.
He could have stepped in when Biden stepped down. There was a gaping leadership void in the Democratic Party which continues to this day.
He was and is a far, far, far better candidate than Harris. Frankly most people are.
He could easily have rallied the party, won several of the swing states, and therefore the election.
Ridiculous. He would have a 100-day window to run a campaign and would not have access to any of the campaign funds.
Harris, in contrast, was on the ballot, was actively campaigning (as VP), and was entitled to the campaign funds.
There is no way he or anyone other than Harris would have a chance.
I agree with that. But you are ignoring the circumstances. Very strange that you would continue with such a weak argument.
Just amazing that you would pen such nonsense under your name.
And if those ignorant far right-wing folk had known that everything that Trump was promising them was a lie what would the result have been?
Some would have still voted for him. One must expect that most current Trump supporters have figured out that Trump is lying to them yet they still support him.
Explain that one.
Judgemental, much? You condemn Kelly for inaction, while remaining silent about our Mad King's outright crimes.
Cool!
Compared to Trump, he gave all times a thousand. He doesn't owe you or this country a damn thing. He has served with honor and was left to care for his disabled wife after political violence left her a mess. WTF Jack, how the hell is it his fault ?
Only one of those two men ran for the presidency.
It's astonishing to me that no liberal seems willing to admit that Donald Trump can only beat incredibly terrible candidates. When Democrats even put up poor but not complete shite options, Trump and his hardcore minions can't win.
When Biden's senility became so obvious even the Democrats couldn't pretend anymore, there was a short list of about 3 people who could have stepped up with a reasonable chance to keep Donald Trump out of the WH.... Andy Beshear, Mark Kelly and Josh Shapiro. There may have been one or two more, but Kamala was definitely NOT on that list.
Kamala Harris never had a chance at the WH. Not because she only had 100 days, but because she's a terrible, awful, horrible candidate that nobody wanted.
Rather than step up and become the next president, Mark Kelly deferred to a woman he knew was less capable and not up to the task. His best case scenario... the one for which he advocated... was "President Harris". Now, I realize liberals don't see this... but that's not a measurably better scenario than we have now, and could easily have been worse.
We needed one of those three, and they all three left Kamala to spin in her own ineptitude and the rest of us to live in Tariff Land. Every man is guilty of the good he didn't do. (Voltaire)
So every Republican in the GoP primary was 'incredibly terrible' in your estimation? You might want to reconsider your position.
She got 48.34% of the vote; 75,019,230 people wanted her to win. Your "nobody wanted" is a ridiculous exaggeration.
"Step up and become ..." ???? This is now ridiculous to the point of humor. Kelly merely "steps up and becomes" the next PotUS?? What a laughably absurd portrayal of US presidential politics.
Funny how you are trying so hard to blame everyone else when it is Trump and his supporters who are to blame for his presidency. Harris was far from ideal but she would have been a normal liberal PotUS unlike the irrational, vindictive, narcissistic, opportunistic, irresponsible, incompetent buffoon that we are stuck with.
They never faced him one v one, like Hillary, Biden or Kamala. There were 13 of them, and they diluted the pool of common sense voters.
We know 75 million people wanted Trump to lose. And you're pretending Kelly couldn't have won? Be serious.
You're are going to need to make up your mind, here. If this election was as close as you claim, and the other liberal claims of racism and misogyny are to be believed, then a white male war hero astronaut would have walked away with it.
In fact, Kelly is now and was at the time a VASTLY more capable candidate and would have made a VASTLY better president. You said so yourself at the time. So this romanticizing Harris as anything other than pathetic is just revisionist history.
I don't blame people for winning. They got what they wanted.
But there are not enough Trump supporters to put him in the WH. Elections are decided by swing voters in swing states. You don't win those by fielding the worst candidate you can find and hoping they're slightly better than the shit candidate they're up against.
There is nothing normal about her. Normal compared to whom?? I know you keep trying to sell that bullshit, but nobody is interested. She would have been a terrible president, and everybody who doesn't lay awake at night obsessing about Trump saw that.
Irrelevant. I would say every candidate (other than Vivek) would have made a vastly better PotUS than Trump. These were not 'incredibly terrible' candidates.
You are not paying attention. The election was clearly close. But the campaign was severely compromised by Biden's late exit. No candidate other than Harris would get the campaign funds. Do you recognize that? No money, Jack. Starting all over. Further, any other candidate would start from scratch on a campaign with only 100 days.
Get real. You are ignoring hard facts. Why?
This is incredible. Normal compared to all other PotUS in our history other than Trump. Harris would have been a conventional liberal PotUS. She would not have engaged in trolling our trade partners, engaging in counterproductive tariffs, claiming to acquire Greenland, firing Inspectors General, firing DoJ official who oppose her, pardoning an endless stream of criminals, engaging in vindictive lawfare, making brain-dead stupid statements such as 'do not take Tylenol', renaming the Gulf of Mexico and DoD, tearing down the East Wing, etc., etc. (the list seems endless here). She would not be selling superhero cards and other paraphernalia. She would not inundate the world with a steady stream of outrageous lies. She would have nominated competent, serious people. You know, what normal PotUS' do.
Yea, but where are all the reasons she would have been a better US potUS than 47...?
And she definitely would have kept Elon and DOGE out of Washington
you're so cute :smile:
usually, I'm called a cutely
obtuse, as most find me not right
Every circus needs a clown.
honk my nose, cause our current circus truly blows, and snot that it is a musing, asz, moored to confusion than a piers, catphishin with Spears till the clubs close in, cause wall to wall carpet bombings let fleas in of America maid sewer grate again, cause we aloud the volume to enabull the LIAR in Chief to again, a tempt christ and bring our De mock crazy to an end,
cause we need a break, from this non stop bend, we've strait up banked on cuz oui' can't seem a bull to sae when....
Say what? From the NYP yet!
it's going to be hilarious when trump escapes at the end and leaves his cult members here to pay his political tab ...
“Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. 6 Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double for her. 7 In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, ‘I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow.’ 8 Therefore her plagues will come in one day—death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges her.
9 “The kings of the earth who committed fornication and lived luxuriously with her will weep and lament for her, when they see the smoke of her burning, 10 standing at a distance for fear of her torment, saying, ‘Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! For in one hour your judgment has come.’
11 “And the merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her, for no one buys their merchandise anymore:" - Revelation 18:4-11
Throwing people under the bus is standard proceudre in this administration.
And from the looks of things now, it won't be that long before that happens. It looks like things are leaning in that direction.
More like falling down in that direction.
nodding off in that direction ...