The Four Reasons Why Kelly Is Fine
1. Kelly is Not in the Military Anymore Kelly’s a civilian. The Uniform Code of Military Justice doesn’t touch him here. Once you’re out, you get your full First Amendment rights back. Simple as that. (See notes at end of diary for Q&A about this.)
2. He’s a Senator, With Extra Protection As a U.S. Senator, he’s got the Speech or Debate Clause in his corner. That gives him far broader leeway to speak on public issues than the average citizen—especially if he spoke from his office, which appears to be the case. And, of course, he’s a Senator. Practically speaking, that’s enough.
No U.S. Senator has ever been prosecuted for treason or sedition. That includes all the Confederate traitors and their Doughface allies.
The harshest real consequences have been expulsion, censure, or indictment for corruption—not charges under treason or sedition statutes.
3. His Words Don’t Meet the Incitement Test Brandenburg sets the bar: speech is only punishable if it’s intended and likely to spark immediate lawless action. Saying “You can refuse illegal orders” is a factual statement, not a call to riot. Kelly’s nowhere near that line.
4. “Sedition” Talk Is Empty Sedition means trying to overthrow the government. Kelly never suggested that. The charge is empty puffery, pure distraction. It’s Trump’s playbook: crank up the drama, suck up the oxygen, keep the spotlight. Same old shit-show.
What’s Really Going On: Wag the Blog
Optics, Not Law: The “sedition” noise is about headlines, not legal reality. It’s a political weapon, not a viable case. Just like Comey, just like James.
Or, I’ll just let the man himself explain (start at 9:18):
Strikes as Spectacle: Whether maritime strikes are lawful is murky—classified targeting data means we can’t know. But presidents have long pushed the boundaries. The difference? Past leaders usually kept it quiet, sometimes with a deft reveal for political purpose; Trump blasts it out, turning “deterrence” into a show.
That he does this at the cost of 80 plus lives is disgusting, but that should come as no surprise. He doesn’t give a shit about any of that.
Media Control: By this staging, and the outrage, Team Trump hijacks the news. It’s “Wag the Dog” lite for the internets age—no big war, just spectacle that rallies supporters and distracts from his domestic problems. Again, a “classic “ move used by Reagan in Grenada and Clinton in Sudan —military action framed as decisive leadership, but serving domestic political objective only.
Another bonus His brand has always leaned on anti‑immigration rhetoric, often “racialized.” The base is restless, wanting more ‘action’ on immigration. The strikes extend that posture: bombing some brown people is always a plus for them.
Bottom line: Kelly’s speech is protected. The “sedition” chatter is noise. The strikes are political theater. Don’t get distracted—it’s the same script, just louder and deadlier.
My recommendation:
And yes, it didn’t work for that guy, but it did for Luke for the lead fighter, who got his shot off. And then later for Luke. And Vader wasn’t shooting blanks. Trump is. Here, at least.
Ignore Trump’s bullshit pot shots at Kelly. Stay on Target.
Notes
1. Thanks to electoral-vote.com for the Four Reasons section, See here.
2. More than few comments in re: “Once you’re out, you get your full First Amendment rights back. Simple as that”
Question: Can retired military members be court‑martialed under the UCMJ?
Answer: Yes, but only if their actions are deemed “service‑connected.” The statute allows jurisdiction over retirees when their conduct directly affects military service or discipline.
Question: Do political statements by a retired officer qualify as “service‑connected”?
Answer: No. Civilian courts have consistently ruled that political speech is not service‑connected. Extending military law into civilian political life has been rejected, especially when First Amendment protections are involved.
Question: How does the First Amendment apply here?
Answer: It is decisive. Once retired, military members regain full First Amendment rights. In the case of a sitting Senator, the Speech or Debate Clause provides an additional constitutional shield for legal and practical reasons.
Question: Legislative speech?
Answer: SCOTUS has clarified that the Speech or Debate Clause protects core legislative acts. This includes:
-
Speeches and debates delivered on the floor of the House or Senate.
-
Committee work such as hearings, reports, and votes, because they are integral to the legislative process.
-
Drafting, introducing, and voting on bills, all of which are considered legislative acts.
-
Internal communications directly tied to legislative duties.
Question: Any conservative pushback on this precedent?
Answer: Yes, some. But, it has come primarily from conservative jurists and legal scholars. Not conservative legislators— gee, I wonder why...😉
Question: What about the Larrabee case — doesn’t it show retirees can be prosecuted?
Answer: Larrabee involved a clear criminal offense (sexual assault), which gave the military jurisdiction a predicate crime. Kelly’s situation is entirely different: it involves political speech, which is constitutionally protected and not a crime.
Question: Could a sitting Senator realistically be recalled and prosecuted under the UCMJ?
Answer: Practically speaking, no. While the rhetoric frames such speech as undermining discipline, the legal path collapses under constitutional scrutiny. Prosecuting a Senator for speech under military law would be absurd and untenable.
Question: So what’s the bottom line?
Answer: The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not reach into civilian political speech. Once retired, military members regain their full First Amendment rights. In short: “The UCMJ doesn’t touch him. Once you’re out, you get your full First Amendment rights back. Simple as that.”
