That would be something for courts to decide, because there’s ample precedent for a fairly broad understanding of “speech or debate”.
Possible. Was it recorded on the premises of either House, and/or during a session? Was it aimed at other members, or was it a public address aimed at the military and the general public?
In any case, previous interpretation by the Supreme Court would indicate that members are not protected from arrest for any criminal offense, which this would certainly be.
It’s a fair question whether Senator Kelly’s actions can be construed as part of his activities as a Senator.
I imagine this will come up if the action proceeds into the court system, and the courts will make the decision that matters.
I’m still frankly baffled about how any “investigation” will lead anywhere, and how (if it does make it to any form of court, civilian or military), it will not simply be laughed at so hard, the judge will shoot milk through his nose.
I mean Kelly simply reminded troops to FOLLOW THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION. How in the name of God can this be seen to be anything bad? Is it because the MAGAts feel there was some sort of unstated implication that maybe Trump was hoping the military would follow unconstitutional illegal orders? Interesting that they would jump to this conclusion. As stated up-thread - throw a stone into a pack of dogs, and the one who yelps is the one you hit.
Well Trump just yelped good and loud.
And it’s hard to take seriously any tweet that doesn’t even get the name of the Department correct.
“The department of killing foreigners and taking their oil”
The idiot trump literally posted a picture of the West Point Plaque which states “should orders and the law ever conflict, our officers must obey the law”. (Thanks to @Sherrerd in the Clusterfuck thread).
“Donald Trump said it, I believe it, and that settles it!” 
I assume this is the result of the Pentagon’s investigation. “Hey, look at that, the military does have to obey the law. Who knew?”
There seems to be an assumption that any officer of a military court will of course do whatever Trump and/or Hegseth say. Of course they will – who could doubt it?
So… The assumption is that any officer will of course follow an illegal order… And prosecute a guy who said to follow the Constitution and not to follow illegal orders.
Seems legit.
There’s really nothing to investigate. The facts are known. No one is denying it. Someone just needs to decide if the administration is going to pull the trigger.
I agree.
While having SCOTUS rule against Trump on anything would be a plus, if the only reason Kelly gets off is the speech and debate clause, this isn’t ideal. It implies that our 2.3 million military retirees do not have freedom to sharply criticize Trump and Hegseth, except for a carveout of the half dozen or so who are current members of congress. Such a ruling would discourage military retirees running as Democrats for Congress, and I think those men and women are often the type who can win in swing districts.
I am not MAGA, and viewing the video, I did find a strong implication in that direction.
And unless NCIS ignores Hegseth, they will be looking at everything Kelly may have said about Trump and the Secretary other than in the Capitol. If Kelly has never used contemptuous words against Trump and Hegseth on the campaign trail, maybe he should start – and be allowed to do so.
I just don’t see how such a broad brush “investigation” could fly if it ever went to court. It would fit the very definition of Selective prosecution. Out of the 1.7 million retired military in the US, they pick THIS ONE SINGLE GUY to investigate, just because Trump got his feelings hurt?
Seems like the state of affairs.
Yes. This is 100% the case. You can know this based on how Democrats have been grilled about this.
I present as evidence this Fox News clip. You do not have to watch it, but if you can stomach it go ahead because it’s just over 5 minutes long.
Representative Jason Crow, one of the congressional members in the (what shouldn’t be) controversial video, is asked which Trump orders to the military have been illegal.
That is what they are afraid of. They believe that this is declaring he has already made illegal orders to the military. And when Crow “fails to” identify such illegal orders, aha, the lie is proven! Which is total BS… The strawman the right-wing nitwits have set up is that Democrats are claiming those orders have already come, which they never did. It’s great when you can prove false something your opponent never claimed in the first place!
Then again, when you think about it, it’s pretty damn hilarious. Trump was convicted of multiple felonies. He’s literally a felon. He has given illegal executive orders many times, as shown by the courts who have blocked him over and over again. He’s been indicted many times. He incited an insurrection against his own damn country. So, you’re going to froth at the mouth about the one area he might technically not have broken the law yet, to the point where you’re literally talking about having elected officials executed?
I would just put it this way… The man is a criminal. He orders people to commit crimes all the time. That’s a fact, not an opinion. So, it’s only logical to assume he will do the same with the military at some point (possibly when this second term ends if he’s still alive), which might be what finally breaks this country for real, and being proactive and raising the alarm about the possibility is the responsible thing to do.
I don’t think it’s that simple. The Dems in the video never come out and say there have been illegal orders, but the implication is there. Denying it is a bit like the “I’m not touching you” game – technically true, but we all know a game is being played.
The deployment of National Guard troops to Portland and Chicago has been ruled illegal by judges. A senior military lawyer said he thought the strikes on Venezuelan boats were illegal. The creators of that video certainly had things like that in mind when they made it.
If you ask those Dems if every order by Trump so far has been legal, they will hem and haw, not give an unequivocal yes, the same way Crow hems and haws which ones are illegal.
It’s rare that selective prosecution is a successful defense, but, then, it’s rare that there is such a clear-cut example.
One approach they could take is to prosecute other military retirees for criticizing Trump on social media. Then it’s not THIS ONE SINGLE GUY.
I expect that they either will forget about Kelly, or use him as a model.
When we learned about this in boot camp, were told that “you had better be sure before you refuse to obey an order”. Also, for clarity, the language in that document talks about “unlawful orders”, not “illegal”.