I have no idea but I'm betting the lawsuit will NOT be tossed. I haven't read the complaint and I don't know who's repping Kelly (I know who's repping Hegseth though, lol)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821142&forum_id=2...id.#49583774)

"Kelly suggested that the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which shields lawmakers for conduct done as part of their legislative activities, gives him immunity from many of the topics raised in Hegseth’s censure letter — from the possible commission of war crimes to the Defense secretary’s firings of admirals and generals."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821142&forum_id=2...id.#49583785)

i have no expertise in this area but i assume it will be tossed because federal courts will defer to the military process and let Kelly appeal from the outcome if his constitutional rights are infringed.

i have no expertise in the Speech and Debate clause but i cannot imagine it will be interpreted to protect that stupid ass video Kelly did. the clause: "and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

from the Congressional Research Service:

Less than a decade after Johnson, the Supreme Court issued two decisions on the same day in 1972 that established important limitations on the types of actions that are protected by the Clause. In United States v. Brewster, which involved a Member's challenge to his indictment on a bribery charge, the Court reaffirmed Johnson and clarified that "a Member of Congress may be prosecuted under a criminal statute provided that the Government's case does not rely on legislative acts or the motivation for legislative acts."71 The Court made clear that the Clause does not prohibit inquiry into illegal conduct simply because it is "related" to the legislative process or has a "nexus to legislative functions," but rather, the Clause protects only the legislative acts themselves.72 By adhering to such a limitation, the Court reasoned that the result would be a Clause that was "broad enough to insure the historic independence of the Legislative Branch, essential to our separation of powers, but narrow enough to guard against the excesses of those who would corrupt the process by corrupting its Members."73

Brewster also drew an important distinction between legislative and political acts. The opinion labeled a wide array of constituent services,74 though "entirely legitimate," as "political in nature" rather than legislative.75 As a result, the Court suggested that "it has never been seriously contended that these political matters ... have the protection afforded by the Speech or Debate Clause."76

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821142&forum_id=2...id.#49583816)

https://www.meme-arsenal.com/memes/b0d685bd9276003f29a92af2fb233943.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821142&forum_id=2...id.#49583836)

You gotta be freaking kidding me.

The judge claims Kelly has a "1st Amendment" to say what he said.

THIS IS INSANE! There is NO 1ST AMENDMENT to help carry out a military rebellion. Appeal and COURT MARTIAL KELLY!

https://x.com/i/status/2022003924711145910

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821142&forum_id=2...id.#49666195)

Filming Location: While the precise spot isn't specified in the initial reports, it was filmed in Washington D.C., likely in a professional setting or public area like the Capitol grounds, to project a unified message from lawmakers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821142&forum_id=2...id.#49584858)

Serious question.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821142&forum_id=2...id.#49583833)

🚨 this is a WLMAS account 🚨

🚨 this is a WLMAS account 🚨

🚨 this is a WLMAS account 🚨

🚨 this is a WLMAS account 🚨

🚨 this is a WLMAS account 🚨

🚨 this is a WLMAS account 🚨

🚨 this is a WLMAS account 🚨

🚨 this is a WLMAS account 🚨

🚨 this is a WLMAS account 🚨

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821142&forum_id=2...id.#49666306)