"did you say that soldiers can disobey illegal orders?"
"Yup."
"Okay, that's completely legal. Have a nice day."
What a waste of time and money.
this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2025
209 points (99.1% liked)
politics
26475 readers
1419 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Lying to FBI is a crime. Make any mistake while talking to them and you can go to jail.
"When was the last time you talked to X?"
"Two weeks ago."
Actually it was one week ago. They can charge you now.
Is "I do not recall" a valid answer?
The best thing to do is not to talk with them at all. It's not a trial, they can't force you.
It depends which side of the aisle you’re on.
[The Senators and Representatives] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Beach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Did their social media video take place in the legislature?
I am not looking forward to potential litigation on that question.
That's why they immediately jumped to treason, to try and bypass that immunity.
Though my question is: doesn't this just fall under the first amendment?
The speech and debate clause is separate from the arrest clause. The Treason exception only applies to the first part.
Additionally, Treason has a definition elsewhere in this document, and just giving any kind of speech doesn't meet the standard.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
It would be pretty hard to claim that any kind of speechifying amounts to "Aid and Comfort", especially if you can't identify the "Enemy" in a time when the nation is at peace.
Now the first amendment does apply here, but I expect a legal defense to go to this speech and debate clause first, then 1st amendment. Because 1st amendment has a bunch of exceptions of the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" type, but speech and debate is going to be more ironclad. Once you convince a court that you were doing Congressional speech or debate, then the only discipline you can face is from your chamber's rules, period.
Sounds like an open and shut case
"This should never have been opened."
Shut the case.
Oh cool, very normal.
hang republicans.
oh, are we not talking about solutions?
Every single photo of this guy 😆
Oh the irony of the reaction proving the video needed to be made... troops are people with family to protect and they are watching.
Any Democrat who voluntarily attends an "interview" is a fucking idiot.
stands up
Bring it on, this is a massive winning issue for dems.
Is Keystone Kash going to stand out in front of the Capitol and vow to track down these Democrats?