Same Democrats

[Le duke]

What if they do.   There is already precedent set to not obey illegal orders.   It was not something any congressman has ever told the military like this before because it was already understood.   They did it as Cav said, to sow division.   If you actually think they were not telling the military to disobey orders, then you can't discern innuendo.  
mspart

And here’s the great thing:

Because Trump (and Hegseth) can’t keep his stupid mouth shut, about anything, this will never, ever make it to trial because no one can get a fair court martial when the CinC has told all potential jurors the desired outcome. As has the SecDef.

So, people can say whatever they want they want about “innuendo”, but it’s all irrelevant. A federal judge will crush this. Kelly won’t even be charged, let alone go to trial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caveira]

4 minutes ago, Le duke said:

And here’s the great thing:

Because Trump (and Hegseth) can’t keep his stupid mouth shut, about anything, this will never, ever make it to trial because no one can get a fair court martial when the CinC has told all potential jurors the desired outcome. As has the SecDef.

So, people can say whatever they want they want about “innuendo”, but it’s all irrelevant. A federal judge will crush this. Kelly won’t even be charged, let alone go to trial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you admit it’s political theatre.   Calculated.  Manipulate.   
 

This is a good examples of politics and politicians sucking. 

[Scouts Honor]

5 hours ago, red viking said:

It's 110% legal if consensual. Zero evidence he used his power to coerce her. Kids on the other hand can't give consent. Trump is therefore a rapist. 

but they can consent to sex changes right

[GreatWhiteNorth]

4 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

It’s the libtardos freaking out about something that hasn’t happen. 

Show us proof it hasn't happened, otherwise stfu.

[JimmySpeaks]

3 minutes ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Show us proof it hasn't happened, otherwise stfu.

Innocent until proven guilty.  So STFU 

[JimmySpeaks]

4 minutes ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Show us proof it hasn't happened, otherwise stfu.

Looks like someone took thanksgiving week off of vacation from the overnight shift of snowplow driving in Minnesota.  Oh wait it’s snowing and you had to go in early. 

[JimmySpeaks]

3 hours ago, Le duke said:

And here’s the great thing:

Because Trump (and Hegseth) can’t keep his stupid mouth shut, about anything, this will never, ever make it to trial because no one can get a fair court martial when the CinC has told all potential jurors the desired outcome. As has the SecDef.

So, people can say whatever they want they want about “innuendo”, but it’s all irrelevant. A federal judge will crush this. Kelly won’t even be charged, let alone go to trial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Federal judges do court marshals? 

[GreatWhiteNorth]

3 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Federal judges do court marshals? 

I suppose judges can court marshals if they have that certain desire.

Federal marshals can also court judges, particularly if the feeling is mutual.

But you'll need to show us proof of any such interactions, otherwise stfu.

[JimmySpeaks]

4 minutes ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

I suppose judges can court marshals if they have that certain desire.

Federal marshals can also court judges, particularly if the feeling is mutual.

But you'll need to show us proof of any such interactions, otherwise stfu.

English please 

[JimmySpeaks]

4 minutes ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

I suppose judges can court marshals if they have that certain desire.

Federal marshals can also court judges, particularly if the feeling is mutual.

But you'll need to show us proof of any such interactions, otherwise stfu.

Since you’re stupid I’ll help you. A retired general can be recalled to service. Then he can be charged for crimes in a military court.  Now STFU 

[Le duke]

English please 

He’s making fun of the fact that you called it a “court marshall”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimmySpeaks]

Just now, Le duke said:

He’s making fun of the fact that you called it a “court marshall”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stunning that you could understand him. 

[JimmySpeaks]

3 minutes ago, Le duke said:

He’s making fun of the fact that you called it a “court marshall”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And it could be if they recall him to service 

Edited November 26, 2025 by JimmySpeaks

[Offthemat]

2 minutes ago, Le duke said:

He’s making fun of the fact that you called it a “court marshall”.

I thought he was making fun of you for implying a federal judge would be hearing a court martial. 

[JimmySpeaks]

6 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

I thought he was making fun of you for implying a federal judge would be hearing a court martial. 

B I n g o 

[JimmySpeaks]

43 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Federal judges do court marshals? 

Is it one l or two ? 

[Le duke]

Federal judges do court marshals? 

It becomes a constitutional issue as the officer who decides to charge him, and *court martial him*, has been influenced by his or her superiors (Hegseth, Trump), who have already stated that he is guilty and in one case, called for his execution. No service member can have a fair trial if their commanding officer states that they are guilty before the trial; that’s illegal in the military and unconstitutional here, which is why it would go before a federal court as a constitutional matter.


There are recent, far more mundane examples of judges ruling that undue influence has impacted the constitutional rights of service members. A Navy judge ruled that Obama had unfairly influenced sentencing for a service member found guilty of sexual assault when Obama publicly stated that the service member should be dishonorably discharged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimmySpeaks]

Just now, Le duke said:

 

It becomes a constitutional issue as the officer who decides to charge him, and *court martial him*, has been influenced by his or her superiors (Hegseth, Trump), who have already stated that he is guilty and in one case, called for his execution. No service member can have a fair trial if their commanding officer states that they are guilty before the trial; that’s illegal in the military and unconstitutional here, which is why it would go before a federal court as a constitutional matter.


There are recent, far more mundane examples of judges ruling that undue influence has impacted the constitutional rights of service members. A Navy judge ruled that Obama had unfairly influenced sentencing for a service member found guilty of sexual assault when Obama publicly stated that the service member should be dishonorably discharged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Who stated he’s guilty ? 

[JimmySpeaks]

1 minute ago, Le duke said:

 

It becomes a constitutional issue as the officer who decides to charge him, and *court martial him*, has been influenced by his or her superiors (Hegseth, Trump), who have already stated that he is guilty and in one case, called for his execution. No service member can have a fair trial if their commanding officer states that they are guilty before the trial; that’s illegal in the military and unconstitutional here, which is why it would go before a federal court as a constitutional matter.


There are recent, far more mundane examples of judges ruling that undue influence has impacted the constitutional rights of service members. A Navy judge ruled that Obama had unfairly influenced sentencing for a service member found guilty of sexual assault when Obama publicly stated that the service member should be dishonorably discharged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Btw what else do you think they’ll find on him in military court? 

[Le duke]

I thought he was making fun of you for implying a federal judge would be hearing a court martial. 

If you violate basic constitutional principles like influencing charging decisions (SecDef and POTUS declaring he’s guilty of a crime would be exactly that), it becomes a constitutional issue before it becomes a military issue.

Which is why I said federal judge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Le duke]

Who stated he’s guilty ? 

The President of the United States of America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimmySpeaks]

He said he believes he’s guilty. Very different 

[JimmySpeaks]

4 minutes ago, Le duke said:

The President of the United States of America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And you think Miley wants to open up his entire career for scrutiny in a military court?  Not a Chance 

Edited November 26, 2025 by JimmySpeaks

[Le duke]

Btw what else do you think they’ll find on him in military court? 

They are not fishing expeditions.

They would have to have very specific charges related to his military service. They can’t pull things out of a hat.

But again…he can’t get a fair trial, so it’s irrelevant. As soon as they try to recall him, he gets an injunction from a federal court, arguing that his sixth amendment rights were violated by an officer unduly influenced by Hegseth and Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimmySpeaks]

1 minute ago, Le duke said:

They are not fishing expeditions.

They would have to have very specific charges related to his military service. They can’t pull things out of a hat.

But again…he can’t get a fair trial, so it’s irrelevant. As soon as they try to recall him, he gets an injunction from a federal court, arguing that his sixth amendment rights were violated by an officer unduly influenced by Hegseth and Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They can ask anything relevant