Court issues injunction preventing Hegseth from demoting Senator Kelly

ThatOwlWoman said:
Judges have always been able to issue rulings protecting the rights of citizens, whether they are former service members, elected officials, or private citizens. It's one of the beauties of our country's system of laws. You don't support the 1st Amendment? Why not?

Kegsbreath should have zero to say about Sen. Kelly's status as a former service member who served with honor. He is not active duty. The horrible fascist stuff YOU espouse here is far, far worse than Kelly informing active duty military personnel that they do not have to obey illegal orders from their superiors -- which is part of the military's own code of conduct.
Click to expand...
A tenet of MAGAt ideology is for Trump to control all three branches of the federal government.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
While I disagree with demoting Kelly for his idiocy, I think the public smackdown he got for participating in that moronic commercial--due no doubt in good part to his being a good party hack--was sufficient. He's unlikely to do that again.

I just hope that whoever runs against him in the next election isn't some 'tard like What's-her-name. I won't vote for Kelly because he is exactly the party hack I describe--that is, he votes with the Democrats almost exclusively because that's a lifetime of being a an uninteresting, do it by the book, officer of no particular distinction in the military.

But a Kari Lake or some other tard running against him makes it super hard to vote for anyone in those cases. It comes down to a protest vote more than wanting to actually vote for one of the candidates and that really sucks when you think about it.
Click to expand...
He has already done it again dozens of times.

He has been on several high profile shows and clearly and with a full voice restated and reemphasized the message with zero fear or fucks given about magats and their threats.

What he has done since is full Streisand effect as the message he has repeated AFTER has been far bigger and more reaching than even the original message.
 
LurchAddams said:
Nope - you continue to be misinformed.
Click to expand...
About what am I misinformed? Just as you were about to say, you conveniently pivoted to DOJ competence.

LurchAddams said:
trump's thug DOJ couldn't even get two grand juries to indict.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with the merits of this case?

LurchAddams said:
There will be no jury because there will be no trial.
Click to expand...
There will be a trial to determine what needs to be determined for this temporary injuction to be able to proceed.
 
IBDaMann said:
About what am I misinformed? Just as you were about to say, you conveniently pivoted to DOJ competence.


What does that have to do with the merits of this case?


There will be a trial to determine what needs to be determined for this temporary injuction to be able to proceed.
Click to expand...
There has to be an indictment before there is a trial, Sweet Cakes. "Box of Wine" Pirro couldn't get one juror to indict. Shows you what a bullshit case it is.

Also, "injunction" is spelled this way, Darlin'. Try running spell-check! You might have more credibility - lord knows you need it!
 
LurchAddams said:
I didn't evade anything. You showed your ignorance by claiming there's going to be a "trial" when Box of Wine failed to even get one juror to indict.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer the question. We'll revisit this when it is revisited, and then we can talk about how you insisted that it would not be revisited.
 
IBDaMann said:
You didn't answer the question. We'll revisit this when it is revisited, and then we can talk about how you insisted that it would not be revisited.
Click to expand...
Yes. Tell us more how they're going to be a "trial" without an indictment. You fucked up. Own it.
 
IBDaMann said:
About what am I misinformed? Just as you were about to say, you conveniently pivoted to DOJ competence.


What does that have to do with the merits of this case?


There will be a trial to determine what needs to be determined for this temporary injuction to be able to proceed.
Click to expand...
Wow. Talk about ignorance. There is no trial for a temporary injunction to proceed. The temporary injunction is done and over. The temporary injunction is in place. The court held a hearing before issuing the temporary injunction. The only thing that can occur is for the temporary injunction to be appealed and overturned by a higher court. Courts rarely overturn temporary injunctions because they simply keep the status quo in place.

The lawsuit itself will move forward to prove or disprove the six claims where Kelley said his rights were violated. So far the government has not provided any defense of the actions of Pete Hegseth.
 
IBDaMann said:
OK. Get back to my original question that you are EVADING. How will the case somehow not proceed after the required findings are found?
Click to expand...
That is one of the most ridiculous things you have ever written. What required findings need to be found? Cases end when the judge or jury reports their finding. So, a case does NOT proceed after a finding.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I think you are talking about two different cases. IBDaMann seems to be referring the civil lawsuit filed by Kelly against Hegseth which resulted in the injunction against Hegseth.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think so. I've been referring over and over again through this discussion how "box of wine" Pirro has failed to indict Kelly. IBD might be talking about something else, but I've been making it pretty clear to what I'm referring.


"The administration’s use of the Justice Department to intimidate President Donald Trump’s political opponents and stifle dissent reached a remarkable new low last week, when federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C. tried and failed to prosecute six Democratic lawmakers who made a video urging military personnel to refuse to carry out illegal orders."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top