According to The New York Times, federal prosecutors argued that the Democrats had “violated a statute that forbids interfering with the loyalty, morale or discipline of the U.S. armed forces.”

Members of the grand jury did not seem to agree.

“This is an outrageous abuse of power by Donald Trump and his lackies [sic],” Kelly wrote in a Tuesday post on Twitter in response to prosecutors’ pursuit of an indictment. “It wasn’t enough for Pete Hegseth to censure me and threaten to demote me, now it appears they tried to have me charged with a crime — all because of something I said that they didn’t like. That’s not the way things work in America.”

Aw, the fags let the fag off? What fucking gay fags.

Hegseth said the same thing a few years ago. Not surprised he doesn't remember though, considering how pickled his brain is.

>>1488064
He does what he’s told or they cut off his alcohol tab. You think he’s gonna jeopardize that?

>>1488078
He cut off his foreskin so anything's possible.

>>1488050
>Americans side with Americans against the fascist conservative regime
I'm shocked, SHOCKED!

>>1488101
>Fascist
>Conservative
Get your eyes checked.

>>1488102
It's the same thing so it is redundant.

>>1488046
It's typically a cakewalk to get a case past a Grand Jury, to the point that it's said that any reasonably competent prosecutor could get one to indict a fucking ham sandwich. Shows just how fucking stupid this whole affair is to screw up at step one.

>>1488117
>get a case past a Grand Jury
Grand Juries literally just check that there appears a crime was committed and the suspect appears to have done it. There is *some* evidence.

>>1488165
>*Some*
Like what? trump tried to get some people arrested for reminding the military that they could refuse illegal orders. Which is 100% correct.
This is just trump being a fascist again in abusing the courts to prosecute people who stand up for the constitution, aka his enemies.

Courts need to start punishing the Trump admin for wasting their time with frivolous lawsuits like this.
There is a clear pattern at this point with Comey, James, and now this.
The admin is just filing these lawsuits with the intent to inconvenience and intimidate, they aren't even putting in the bare minimum effort to actually argue the (non-existent) case
No wonder DOJ prosecutors are fleeing at historic levels

>>1488207
Grand juries get testimony and evidence, but it's only the stuff the prosecutors want them to see, and it's to a "more likely than not that this person took this action" standard, with no concern for motive. "Is it more likely than not that this man drove 40 mph over the speed limit and hit that girl crossing the street, given that you've seen this camera footage of the event and the testimony of the responding officer who saw him behind the wheel?" "Is it more likely than not this man was transporting thirty pounds of cocaine, given that you've seen the body cam footage of him being pulled over and this lab report saying those bricks of powder in the trunk are cocaine?", etc. It should be very easy for prosecutors to do if they've actually got a case to make.

>>1488165
If you mean that a grand jury is SHOWN some evidence, then yes, that's correct, they are shown enough evidence to make a decision on whether whatever charges they're being asked to indict on have a chance of succeeding. The bar to clear is EXTREMELY low.

Unfortunately we don't know what charges they tried for, that hasn't been released, but given the failure to indict, it would seem they didn't show anything even remotely convincing. I'm extremely curious what charges they even tried to indict them for, I can't think of any that wouldn't be laughed out of any court that isn't owned by the GOP

>>1488117
The problem with juries is that they're selected from your peers, which means the outcome of a Grand Jury depends on the political climate.

A progressive democratic jury isn't going to indict democratic lawmakers because, as evidenced by Charlie Kirk, they think it's totally fine to commit violence against people that have contrary political opinions.

The really fucked up thing with Trump versus Democratic lawmakers is that Trump hasn't doesn't anything different from what Obama did back in the day. But because Trump is Trump Democrats are openly in favor of insurrection now.

>>1488247
Theres no defense at these Grand Jurys either, right? So its just Trumps DOJ critter presenting only evidence that they think looks good to convince the jury members they selected that a crime occurred and a real trial needs to go forward
How sad is it that they can't even get a win like that?
Almost as sad as the coping going around that Dems don't have these setbacks, probably because they prosecute actual crimes without political bias, which is completely anathema to these retarded shills

>>1488265
Very sad, the saying used to be "I can indict a ham sandwich", but this administration can't even do that. The grand jury returned a no verdict on the guy who threw a sandwich at ICE.

>>1488046
Another reason why we should disband the courts and let Trump dispense justice. It’s clear that the law and constitution are wrong if they contradict the POTUS

>>1488265
Yes, my understanding is that there's no defense, just prosecution presenting evidence to convince the jury that the case has enough merit to go to trial. In these cases they've failed to even convince the jury that a crime MIGHT have taken place.

>>1488262
Grand juries still have jury selection. If you are going to insist that this is just a case of juries declining to indict despite sufficient evidence, then they should have had an easy time in jury selection weeding out the scary Democrat activists before presenting their case. Unless you ALSO think that the entire selection pool was biased and wouldn't indict, in which case it sure seems like the people have spoken.

I know you're a shill desperately trying to give the appearance of public support for the Trump administration's attempts to go after their enemies, but I'd love to hear what crime you think was committed for them to be indicted, and what evidence you think would justify their indictment for that crime.

>>1488337
>Unless you ALSO think that the entire selection pool was biased and wouldn't indict, in which case it sure seems like the people have spoken.
Yeah retard, that was my point. Pulling jurors from one of the most heavily blue parts of the US and expecting impartiality is retarded.

The only thing this refusal indicates is that democrat jurors are willing to support democrat leaders that encourage violent insurrection. Which we already knew. They collaborate and lie on shit they think is morally correct, even if it includes blatantly inciting violence, like Tim Walz did when he unequivocally threatened to use the national guard against ICE on national television.

If you're fine with that then you're a lost cause.

>>1488354
>Pulling jurors from one of the most heavily blue parts of the US and expecting impartiality is retarded.
>Republicans don't exist in blue states
You're literally just saying the only jury that's valid is one that does what the admin wants.

>>1488283
>t. Cultist

>>1488165
Exactly my point. If you can't get past that, you never should've even bothered showing up.

>>1488239
So it's not only cherry picked, it could be completely made up. Which is what trump did.

>>1488498
Well, that's the modern standard set by Democrats. I don;t think you can even be mad without being a hypocrite.

>>1488515
>Well, that's the modern standard set by Republicans
Fixed

>>1488357
No, just the ones that don't fucking lie under oath.

>>1488521
So everyone in the trump regime

>>1488498
Lying to a grand jury is a crime with an enforcement mechanism. Theoretically they can go to prison if they do that. Theoretically.

>>1488565
Getting Trump isn't a proper political platform, FYI.

>>1488521
What are you even referring to here? Who lied under oath? Is this even related to the topic at hand, or are you pivoting to an unrelated claim? It's a popular tactic in the current administration, as we saw from Bondi yesterday.

>>1488624
trump proved getting revenge on people you think have wronged you is a valid political platform, so bringing him to justice is as well.

>>1488771
You're doing the thing where you pretend that y'all didnt bring politically motivated prosecutions against Trump in like three different states?
>nooo! thats different!

>>1488775
For shit he very much did. His defense was not "I didn't do that" it was "You can't prosecute me for doing that because I was president"

>>1488777
>For shit he very much did
And he is now prosecuting people for shit they very much did.

>>1488780
Shit they did that isn't actually a crime lol. Telling soldiers something that literally is part of their code isn't "seditious behavior" no matter how much Trump and Hegseth bitch and moan. They got BTFOed in court over it twice over and will continue to do so because it isn't a fucking crime.

>>1488782
>Telling soldiers something that literally is part of their code isn't "seditious behavior" no matter how much Trump and Hegseth bitch and moan.
Okay, no tears when we do it then. Right?

>>1488787
Hegseth literally did it first. On national television as a Fox News host too.

>>1488787
>The military would not carry out a patently unlawful order from the president to kill nonmilitary targets. Indeed, service members are required not to do so,” Bondi wrote in the brief.
Who is quoted?

>>1488800
Right now you faggots are saying the strikes in the Caribbean are illegal.

>>1488652
>Who lied under oath?
Jurors are required to take an oath before a judge to tell the truth.
The case in question was regarding democratic representatives urging troops to commit sedition, which they all provably did, because they recorded themselves doing it.

>>1488818
That’s not lying under oath, idiot.

>>1488805
As of now we have at least one textbook case of illegal action, yes, the murder of two men in the water and clinging to the wreckage of their boat.

>>1488818
Sedition requires that one resist "lawful military authority". The video explicitly called upon service members to reject illegal orders. Illegal orders are definitionally NOT lawful. Thus, sedition was not committed. This is kind of obvious stuff, anon.

If you'd like to point to a part of their speech which indicates otherwise (their speech which is protected by both the 1st amendment and the speech and debate clause), I'm curious to see what you think counts as seditious.

>>1488841
Oh and don't forget the allegations of perfidy by painting the drone as a civilian aircraft.

>>1488818
>The case in question was regarding democratic representatives urging troops to commit sedition, which they all provably did, because they recorded themselves doing it.
No they didn't, they reminded them of the oath they literally all took when they signed up. This is like saying "I have a right to bare arms" is threatening to shoot someone.

>>1488841
>As of now we have at least one textbook case of illegal action
As much as you want it to be illegal, it wasn't.

>>1488845
>USN used a Pilatus U-28 Draco in non-mil markings for recon
>WARCRIME
See. Here is the problem. You're saying things that 10001% are not "War crimes" are war crimes and then telling military personnel not to obey orders.

>>1488846
>THE US MILITARY IS DOING ILLEGAL THINGS
>So... uh... just generally you shouldnt obey illegal orders. Nothing specific.
Hey bud, if its okay when Sen. Kelly does it. Then its okay when Sen. Cotton does it during the next Democrat Administration. Right?

>>1488849
>Then its okay when Sen. Cotton does it during the next Democrat Administration. Right?
Sure, that’s fine.

>>1488849
>You're saying things that 10001% are not "War crimes" are war crimes and then telling military personnel not to obey orders.
No they're saying "don't obey orders to commit war crimes". War crimes would include killing shipwrecked victims, objectively. Are you saying the military is doing that?

>Hey bud, if its okay when Sen. Kelly does it. Then its okay when Sen. Cotton does it during the next Democrat Administration. Right?
Why do you keep saying this like Hegseth didn't say this on live TV back during his days as a Fox News host?

>>1488853
>No they're saying "don't obey orders to commit war crimes". War crimes would include killing shipwrecked victims, objectively.
So, they told members of the military not to obey orders they have been given?

>>1488860
They're reminding them that their own code forbids obeying unlawful orders. War crimes are unlawful. Are you saying the military is ordering war crimes?

>>1488861
So, there is no relationship between what they told the soldiers and what they said about the strikes in the Caribbean?

>>1488843
>The video explicitly called upon service members to reject illegal orders.
And democrats have been saying that Trump has been committing illegal actions for the last thirteen months, with the implication being that they should disobey the CiC.

The judicial branch is what decides whether an order is illegal or not. Not a few rogue representatives that have been literally saying that Trump is a fascist and that armed servicemen are necessarily required to disobey the things he orders them to do.

>>1488863
You're allowed to point out allegations of war crimes in the caribbean and point out that any orders to commit those war crimes is unlawful. Telling US troops "Don't obey orders to commit war crimes" isn't just legal, it's required for them to do.

>>1488865
>The judicial branch is what decides whether an order is illegal or not.
Yes, and they have already determined an order to commit something recognized in both US and international law as a war crime is illegal. So unless the Trump admin HAS been ordering the commission of war crimes in the Caribbean there should be no problem?

>>1488866
Ahhh. So there is a connection between what Democrats have said about the strikes and the video to the troops.

>>1488847
>n-no it wasn't!
compelling rebuttal

>>1488868
>and they have already determined an order to commit something recognized in both US and international law as a war crime is illegal
No one has ruled any of the strikes are illegal.

>>1488870
Considering you've failed two separate attempts as prosecution for these...

>>1488870
Your dumbass is rambling about perfidy. No point in trying to discuss the double-tap.

>>1488869
Unless you're admitting the allegations of the Trump admin committing war crimes is correct, no. If the allegations are correct and the Trump admin has been ordering troops to commit war crimes, they have an duty under their own code to disobey those orders.

>>1488875
Democrats have not said the strikes are illegal?

>>1488871
But if they were to commit a war crime in the process of those strikes, it would be. That is the subject of the video and that is not "treason" by any means to point out.

But there isn't any war crimes so there should be no problems with the reminder, right?

>>1488876
They can claim the strikes are illegal. That's free speech. That doesn't mean them pointing out illegal orders are illegal isn't objectively true.

>>1488878
The question is not wether or not there are warcrimes. The question is did Sen. Kelly (and others) (1) state that certain orders are warcrimes and (2) tell soldiers not to obey illegal orders.

You're saying that because (1) and (2) did not occur at the same time its totally fine and absolutely great for our democracy. I am saying that its not, and this is really fucking bad for our democracy.

>>1488879
>its totally okay to say that certain orders are illegal and then tell soldiers not to obey those orders
For a civilian, yes. For a member of the military, no.

>>1488882
>For a civilian, yes. For a member of the military, no.
That's not how the first amendment works. Also, members of the military literally all make an oath that involves saying this.

>>1488878
Treason is aiding your enemies. Sedition is rebelling against the authority of a lawful governing body. They're not the same thing.

Telling soldiers to disobey a direct order from the HEAD of the executive branch is illegal, actually. Which comes back to the problem of democrat representatives being aided by democratic voters to rebel against the federal government.

>>1488880
>You're saying that because (1) and (2) did not occur at the same time its totally fine
Which it is. Free speech. Unless the orders are to commit war crimes and other unlawful actions there should be no issue.

>>1488884
>Telling soldiers to disobey a direct order from the HEAD of the executive branch is illegal, actually.
Is an illegal order, such as the commission of a war crime, still illegal if the head of the executive gives it, yes or no?

>>1488883
>That's not how the first amendment works
It is actually. Parker v. Levy, soldiers dont enjoy 1A rights like you or I do.
>members of the military literally all make an oath that involves saying this.
Yes, but you dont get to unilaterally decide what is lawful and unlawful. There are systems in place.

Again, you're fucking up our democracy.

>>1488888
>Yes, but you dont get to unilaterally decide what is lawful and unlawful.
Did the dems do that in the video where they said "Do not follow unlawful orders"?

>>1488887
It doesnt matter, because the orders in question are legal.

>>1488886
Is there a point to this false dichotomy? Because the executive branch determines whether or not something constitutes a warcrime.

>>1488890
That's not what I asked. If the head of the executive gave an order that was objectively illegal, such as to commit a war crime, would it be legal? Yes. Or. No?

>>1488889
>tee...hee... hee we did it at different times so it doesnt count!

>>1488891
>Because the executive branch determines whether or not something constitutes a warcrime.
No it doesn't lol.

>>1488892
No.

>>1488892
>objectively illegal
To reiterate: the executive branch decides whether a warcrime has been committed. So they get to decide whether their own orders are legal. Not elected representatives.

>>1488893
Yes actually. Did that video suggest what laws are and aren't lawful? Because if it didn't, your entire case that the video is "seditious" falls the fuck apart.

>>1488895
Very good. So then it is in fact possible for the head of the executive to give an illegal order. And therefore, it is the duty of the executive to not obey that illegal order per their own code of conduct.

>>1488894
Yes, it does. The exeucitve branch has plenary authority to investigate and prosecute warcrimes.

>>1488892
>I know how the UCMJ works
You only get to disobey orders that are OBVIOUSLY illegal. You dont get to disobey orders that MAY be illegal based on proportionality or target classifications. You literally get taught this at basic. I can still hear my DI literally screaming at us
>If you can DEBATE IT you OBEY IT.

Kelly, and those Dems know exactly what they are doing and its absolutely fucked up.

>>1488896
>the executive branch decides whether a warcrime has been committed.
No it doesn't lol. The executive cannot override congressional and international standards on what is and is not a war crime.

>>1488898
Nigga, idk who you're arguing against. Perhaps you're too stupid to know whats being argued.

>>1488897
>Well, you see I said the strikes in the Caribbean are illegal, and I told the soldiers to disobey illegal orders but I didnt do both at once so it doesn't count

>>1488901
>You only get to disobey orders that are OBVIOUSLY illegal.
Yeah so what is the problem with reminding them of that? You said it yourself, they get told this at bootcamp. Unless the Trump admin has been giving blatantly illegal orders there should be no issue with reminding them of that.

>>1488902
International law doesn't apply to the US government, and the Executive Branch manages the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) through the President.

>>1488904
>whats the problem with Dems saying THESE ORDERS ARE ILLEGAL
>and then making a video to soldiers how they must not obey illegal orders
Total mystery.

>>1488900
>The exeucitve branch has plenary authority to investigate and prosecute warcrimes.
Yes but they don't decide what a war crime is, which is what you're saying. Arguing "well they can just not persecute them for them!" doesn't mean they didn't commit a war crime. It also doesn't mean refusing to obey illegal orders is a crime.

>>1488906
Does the video where they remind them of their oath that says "do not obey illegal orders" say what is and is not an illegal order?

>>1488907
>Yes but they don't decide what a war crime is
They literally fucking do through the UCMJ. All this talk of international law is equally retarded because the US armed forces are the primary enforcement mechanism behind international law in the western world.
We literally kidnapped the leader of a foreign government one month ago, what are you even talking about.

>>1488873
>>1488874
>you
I'm not the one you speak of.

>>1488907
The Judiciary has oversight over the military you absolute fucking retard.

>>1488891
I was wondering someone would sprinkle in some Nixon.

>>1488910
>They literally fucking do through the UCMJ. All this talk of international law is equally retarded because the US armed forces are the primary enforcement mechanism behind international law in the western world.
So you're literally just arguing the US military is above all laws, including its own?

Yeah good luck with that court argument. Will probably go about as well as this attempt to bring charges that failed so miserably you tried to insist the whole jury lied about being impartial.

>>1488916
There is no 'court argument'. The UCMJ investigates the possibility of warcrimes, and the official stance of the executive branch is that no warcrimes were committed.
>Will probably go about as well as this attempt to bring charges that failed so miserably you tried to insist the whole jury lied about being impartial.
As said previously: jury of your peers doesn't work if your peers are all equally supportive of sedition and insurrection against the federal government.

>>1488919
Big "if," there.

>>1488920
I already know the jurors lied. You would have to be an abject idiot to believe that all of the things those representatives were saying solely existed in a vacuum, which they obviously didn't.

Seems like a civil war is inevitable at this point if democrats are willing to collaborate on sedition.

>>1488922
>I already know the jurors lied.
Oh we got a psychic over here. You realize a grand jury literally needs bare minimum evidence of a crime to serve charges, right? And that this wasn't even enough for that is a pretty big indicator you're wrong.

>>1488927
>You realize a grand jury literally needs bare minimum evidence of a crime to serve charges, right?
What does it matter if the grand jury thinks Trump is a fascist dictator and there isn't anything immoral about lying if it's done to destroy him?
You are an idiot my dude

>>1488922
>I already know the jurors lied
Proof? I want an exact quote from them.