Navigate Select ESC Close

Trump LOSES IT as He Gets PUBLICLY CALLED OUT

2025-12-03 News & Politics
24.3k
2.6k
119
Legal AF
Legal AF
1.1m subscribers

Pentagon Investigation Into Senator Kelly's Restatement of Military Law Governing Unlawful Orders

Learn why the Pentagon initiated an investigation against Senator Mark Kelly for restating the explicit, black letter law that instructs troops they have a duty to refuse illegal orders. This segment analyzes the constitutional protections at stake and the dubious political motivations driving the inquiry.

Short Summary

  • Hosts confirm Senator Kelly merely recited doctrine explicitly taught to every service member, from enlistee to officer.
  • The investigation risks chilling freedom of speech for all service members regarding their oaths.
  • The administration is perceived to be attacking a decorated war hero based on established law, which is predicted to backfire politically.

This discussion focuses squarely on the legal foundation supporting Senator Kelly’s message—that military personnel must disobey unlawful orders—and dissects the legal rationale behind Trump’s administration threatening prosecution against a sitting senator and former Navy Captain.

Unlock all features

FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.

Description

Brian Kabateck and Shant Karnikian break down the Pentagon's investigation of Senator Mark Kelly for simply restating black letter military law—that troops have a legal duty to refuse unlawful orders. Kelly, a retired Navy captain with 39 combat missions in Desert Storm, 5,000 flight hours, and 375 carrier landings, appeared in a video with five other Democratic lawmakers reminding service members: "Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this constitution. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders." Brian reveals this language is literally taught to all recruits—the Naval Academy explicitly teaches "there is a duty to disobey illegal orders," Navy Basic Training says "illegal orders are void and must not be obeyed," and Army training states "you are never required to follow an illegal order." Examples include refusing orders that led to My Lai massacre and Abu Ghraib abuses. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called the video "despicable, reckless, and false" and threatened court-martial, while Trump accused Kelly of "seditious behavior punishable by DEATH." White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt (who never served) declared all White House orders are "legal per se." The Pentagon could recall Kelly to active duty under Article 32 UCMJ if they establish probable cause of violations like "conduct unbecoming," but the hosts argue Kelly's statement is accurate law and constitutionally protected speech. Brian cites the only precedent: Rear Admiral Seldon Hooper court-martialed in the 1950s post-McCarthy era for being gay. The hosts predict this will backfire as reasonable conservatives recognize Kelly as a patriot and war hero. Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/@LegalAFMTN?sub_confirmation=1 Legal AF Substack: https://substack.com/@legalaf Follow Legal AF on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/legalafmtn.bsky.social Follow Michael Popok on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/mspopok.bsky.social Subscribe to the Legal AF by MeidasTouch podcast here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-af-by-meidastouch/id1580828595

Top Comments (10)

@vanrozay8871 2025-12-03

Not only CAN you refuse illegal orders; you MUST!

66 2 replies
@wandawashington9168 2025-12-03

Drumpf is pissed because he knows what him and Hegseth are doing, giving illegal orders, if the shoe fits

46 1 replies
@katz0114 2025-12-03

I'm USAF retired and we're taught that too.

35
@robineagle577 2025-12-03

Can we recall Hegseth to active duty? Court martial.

34 4 replies
@Stuffed_Cat 2025-12-03

People keep saying "can" when it comes to not obeying illegal orders. No! " As Mr. Kabateck read out: "...DUTY to disobey illegal orders...", "...Illegal orders are VOID, and MUST NOT be obeyed". It's not a question of "can", implying a choice. In both case, it's clear that they MUST NOT. If they choose to obey an order, knowing it's illegal, they are clearly as guilty of whatever crime is being committed as all the people in the chain of command both above and below them, up to the person who initially ordered the action.

12
@nanceallegretti393 2025-12-03

Trump's been breaking the constitution since he took office. ICE is his personal military & they've been breaking laws. The boat strikes are clearly illegal but Maga GOP is supporting them

11
@carolakelleski7905 2025-12-03

Unfortunately I remember the Mei Lei massacre 😢 Thank you gentlemen for explaining this to us 😊

10
@PierretteChabot-ui6gg 2025-12-03

Kelly should counter-sue at once. There needs to be consequences for attempted intimidation.

10
@archstanton373 2025-12-03

Mark Kelly for President!

8 1 replies
@josenegron4602 2025-12-03

All this BS with Sen Kelly is to distract from someone really committing an unlawful order and illegal orders from DOD

4

Unlock the Data Inside
Turn Videos into Knowledge

  • Get FREE 10/day: transcripts, summaries, chats
  • Chat with videos, export text & PDF
  • $1 free API credit for RAG, chatbots & research

Free forever plan • All features unlocked

App screenshot