Dem Senator THREATENED WITH COURT MARTIAL By Pete Hegseth

3:50 Mark is boring? Dude is literally lived up to what every six year old American boy wants to be. Not to mention standing by his wife.

Combat veteran flew fighter jets, astronaut… Saagar: “this guy is the most boring uninteresting person I’ve ever met” I know that Saagar is an objectively smart guy, but my god he constantly says some of the dumbest most absurd shit I’ve ever heard in my entire life.

Ummm Mark Kelly was a friggin astronaut? Fuck is Saagar talking about? That's fairly compelling?

Are Pete Hegseth's multiple public intoxication allegations not a violation of the UCMJ article 134?

Ah, yes, Saagar, those "boring" fighter pilot/astronauts. 🤡

I'm a veteran. Members of the U.S. military are not only told to *disobey illegal orders but are legally obligated to do so.* A service member who obeys a *manifestly illegal order* can be held criminally responsible for their actions. The duty to disobey an unlawful order is a fundamental part of U.S. military law, primarily rooted in the *Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)* and the *Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM).* 1. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92: Failure to Obey Order or Regulation. This article, which outlines the offense of disobeying an order, specifies that the order must be *lawful.* The UCMJ only punishes the disobedience of *lawful* orders. By implication, disobedience of an *unlawful* order is not punishable under this article, and in fact, becomes the required course of action. An order is considered unlawful if it is *contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders, or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it* (Source: MCM, Article 92). 2. Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) The MCM, which implements the UCMJ, provides crucial guidance on the presumption of legality and the exception for illegal orders: The MCM explicitly states that the presumption that an order is lawful "does not apply to a *patently illegal order,* such as one that directs the commission of a crime" (e.g., an order to commit murder, torture, or target unarmed civilians), or a superior male officer telling a subordinate female they are ordered to consent to sexual intercourse with the superior officer. The *"Just Following Orders"* defense does not work. The U.S. military's stance is directly informed by the *Nuremberg Principles* established after World War II. An order to commit a war crime or crime against humanity (indiscriminately killing civilians, torture, etc.), regardless of who issues it, is never a legal defense for the subordinate who carries it out. In practice, nearly all military orders carry a *presumption of lawfulness.* This means the service member must obey the order immediately, *unless* the order is *manifestly unlawful* (clearly illegal on its face). *Unlawful Orders* typically involve actions like: (a) Targeting or intentionally harming unarmed civilians. (b) Torturing or abusing detainees. (c) Ordering the commission of a federal crime (e.g., murder or larceny). (d) Violating the U.S. Constitution or applicable international law (like the Geneva Conventions). If anything, Senator Kelly's comments are a pubic service announcement that reminds those in the military of the importance of following *lawful orders.* But it's also a great move by Hegseth in elevating Kelly as a main contender for the presidency in *2028.*

Seditious Six? This is stupid. Free speech bro. Move on.

Drunk Pete should be court-martialed

lol, the charge of sedition is taken so unseriously that it's the 6th story of the day

Just start impeaching all of these cabinet appointments