Posted on 11/27/2025 4:29:09 PM PST by Cincinnatus.45-70
What if Senator Kelly and the other members of Congress making that video about not following illegal orders did not intend it for our military. What if they intended it as a message to their hysterical followers. What if they intended their followers to assume anyone in uniform following Trump's orders were following illegal orders, because what else can Trump do? At this point how could anyone know if that was their intent or not?
Wouldn't some of their crazed followers do exactly what that Afghan in DC is alleged to have done, and attack anyone on military duty? At this point, is it reasonable for any military member in uniform to expect to be attacked by "Antifa" or other crazed progressives?
I'm sure the Senator and the others intended no such thing. Could someone call on Senator Kelly and the others to make another video saying no illegal orders have been given to their knowledge and no one else should attack US military members? That their first video was terribly thought out and misconceived?
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
They will do no such thing. This was all a part of the plan. Opening salvos so to speak. I don’t think at this point they are in any legal jeopardy either. They even have billboards up now all over the place calling for the military to disobey Trumps orders.
.
They are in jeopardy morally, but they won’t be legally. That is all that matters to these people. Morally wrong means nothing to them.
Maybe they were just doing it at the behest of the cartels and other foreign actors who are paying them off on the sly.
If you accept the notion of plausible deniability, then it might be innocent. I guess it depends on whether or not you look both ways before you cross the street as a pedestrian.
Me? I look both ways before I turn onto a one-way street, or enter a roundabout.
Dude, you have to respect Mark Kelly. He is an “astronaut.” You know, like Katy Perry and Gayle king.
Why not both scenarios? They intended it for the military and they intended it for their hysterical followers.
If I had to guess what is really going on, that might very well be it.
I think most here didn’t read past your headline.
Regardless of their intent Kelly and his seditious co-conspirators are responsible for the results of their video. I believe they should hang for subverting the military chain of command.
For him, a violation of UCMJ Art 134 at minimum, imo.
Interesting that they didn’t cry about illegal orders when the military was ordered to receive an experimental, untested “vaccine.”
No... took me a second. I think he is saying it wasn’t a message to the military as to what they should or shouldn’t do.
It was a dog whistle to antifa and the leftists and the nuts that “these soldiers are doing illegal things” and that justifies stopping them with force.
Not dismissing it out of hand.
Along the same logical lines: What if the Earth is flat?
3 AWFULs, 2 cucks and a dick with eyebrows....
The communists sure do know how ot pick em.....spit.
That is how we know intentions— by their predictable consequences. If the consequences of your action are harmful, then we know your intention was to do harm. Presuming sanity and competency of course.
“ That said, I believe that Kelley and company have nefarious intent. Proving it might be well nigh impossible. It kind of sets up a reversed Nuremberg Trial argument...”I was only disobeying illegal orders.” It’s twisted, but it’s not the finest thread the wacky left ever clung to in support of their views.” That’s exactly the mindset they want the insurrectionists to use as their excuse for disobeying any law or order from what they want to call an illegal administration or an illegal military order.
That’s what a Military Court might have to decide.
They are trying to set the narrative thru the MSM for when trump starts rounding up the seditionist, traitors & other internal enemies of the state to try to accuse trump of issuing illegal orders
Exactly. THey are SKEERED of what’s about to happen. They already dug themselves a hole and now they’re digging it deeper.
I’m dramatic like that...
Slotkin, in her speech, hates that we are using the National Guard to protect ICE.
She hates that we are blowing up the drug cartel’s boats.
Transcribed
I walked through the hectic events of the last few days, including what appears to be the new FBI inquiry. | Senator Elissa Slotkin
Myself and five others who are either former intelligence or former military officers put out a video restating the law that’s in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That if you’re given an order that’s illegal, according to the UCMJ, you have the ability to push back on that order. Legal orders should always be followed, just talking about illegal orders.
We had a ton of folks in uniform and a lot of veterans come to us and raise real concerns about things that they were asked to do or things that they were concerned they might be asked to do, particularly with the deployments of the National Guard and uniformed military into our city streets, places like Chicago, and the strikes in the Caribbean against drug cartels. The legality, particularly on the going after the drug cartels, it’s a secret list of groups that we’re now in armed conflict with, and it’s based on a legal explanation that’s classified and not available to the operators who are carrying out these strikes. So they started coming to us and saying like, hey, I’m not sure what to do.
Do you have any thoughts? Do you have any advice? And that’s where the video came from. This is unfortunately not a hypothetical conversation. In 2020, President Trump didn’t like the unarmed protesters that were in front of the White House in Lafayette Square, and he suggested to his Secretary of Defense and his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the Oval Office, you know, can’t they just, quote, shoot at the legs of the unarmed protesters? Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, I give them a lot of credit.
They knew immediately that that would meet the definition of an illegal order, and they got out of there as fast as possible so that he didn’t demand and try and get them to carry out that order. But here’s the thing, regardless of whether you agree with the video or don’t agree with the video, the question to me is, is this the appropriate response for a President of the United States to go after and seek to weaponize the federal government against those he disagrees with? We’re not the first group of people that he’s done that with. We are not going to be the last group of people to do that.
He’s tweeted dozens of times about us in the past 72 hours or so, as has the Vice President, saying that we should be arrested, we should be tried, we should be convicted, and made clear repeatedly that the sentence for that crime would be hanging. He’s repeated that over and over, both in his statements and in memes. Because of that, we saw an immediate and massive uptick in the number of death threats that we got.
I mean, we couldn’t hundreds up, it’s got to be past thousands now, both in calls to our office, in emails. The Capitol Police and the Sergeant of Arms decided to put myself and others on 24-7 security. They’re here today.
We had a bomb threat at my family farm where I live. My family has been harassed. It’s been an immediate change to our life.
And then last night, the Counterterrorism Division at the FBI sent a note to the members of Congress, saying they are opening what appears to be an inquiry against the six of us. To be honest, the President’s reaction and the use of the FBI against us is exactly why we made the video. He believes in using the federal government against his perceived adversaries, and he’s not afraid to use the arms of the government against people he disagrees with.
He does not believe the law applies to him. He has said that every which way to Sunday. Which is exactly why we made the video, to give people some assurance that they weren’t alone as they watch this stuff unfold.
This is a scare tactic by him. He is attempting to use the FBI to scare us out of continuing to talk and have conferences like this. And I think it is a well-worn tactic of people who are trying to intimidate adversaries, their perceived enemies, out of public criticism of themselves.
And again, this is not about any one video or even one sentence out of a video. This is about who we are as Americans, how we’re going to engage with each other, whether we’re going to use law enforcement and the military to target legally people who say things. It is basic freedom of speech and restating existing law.
Now obviously you hear I have a cold, but regardless of that and the attempts to intimidate us, that is not going to stop me or anyone else who made this video. In fact, I think it’s more important than ever, given that he’s used the same tactic on the private sector, on law firms, on universities. We are not the first group and we are not the last group that he is going to use the arms of government.
And again, if he’s going to use the FBI against members of Congress, what would he do to average citizens who don’t have that elected cover? So it’s not going to stop me. It’s not going to stop others. I feel strongly that we were doing what we believed was right based on our oath of office to the Constitution.
And if he wants to use the FBI and Kash Patel against us, that is his choice, but it just reaffirms why we made this video in the first place.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2018-title18/pdf/USCODE-2018-title18-partI-chap115-sec2387.pdf
§2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—
For the purposes of this section, the term “military or naval forces of the United States” includes the Army of the United States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the master, officers, and crew of such vessel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.