Hegseth Starts A Slap Fight With Sen Mark Kelly, Gets Slapped Upside His Head
Hegseth said he would appeal a ruling against the Pentagon’s actions toward Kelly and continued to characterize Kelly’s conduct as sedition.
SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYCrooks and Liars is a blog with an openly partisan voice, which limits confidence in its editorial neutrality. The post has an attributed author and cites a court ruling and public statements, but offers little independent reporting or opposing perspective.
- Source type — A blog with a strongly partisan presentation.
- Editorial standards — The text is commentary-heavy and does not present a clear separation between reporting and opinion.
- Author attribution — The post names an author.
- Source selection — It refers to a court ruling and quotes public statements, but gives little sourcing beyond those references.
The post identifies a court ruling and quotes statements from Hegseth and Kelly, but gives little legal context and presents the dispute in highly mocking, one-sided language without a substantive counterperspective.
HOW WE SCORE ↗The article relies on a single critical perspective, uses repeated ridicule, and does not explain Hegseth’s rationale or provide a meaningful counterargument.
- Counterarguments presented — Hegseth’s appeal announcement is quoted, but his underlying position is not explained or defended.
- Loaded language — The post uses personal insults and mocking descriptions of Trump and Hegseth.
- Source diversity — It presents the judge’s ruling and Kelly’s response without a broader range of perspectives.
- Opinion vs reporting — Commentary and reporting are blended throughout.
The article uses overtly hostile language about Trump and Hegseth while portraying Kelly favorably. Its framing and commentary strongly signal a left-leaning perspective.
- Language tone — Insults and jokes target Trump and Hegseth throughout.
- Framing — The judge’s ruling and Kelly’s response are presented as vindicating Kelly, while Hegseth is framed as petulant.
- Source selection — The article quotes Hegseth and Kelly but offers no substantive defense of Hegseth’s position.
A federal judge ruled that Pete Hegseth’s attempt to punish Sen. Mark Kelly was unconstitutionally retaliatory. Hegseth said he would appeal and called Kelly’s conduct sedition; Kelly responded by defending the principle that service members must disobey unlawful orders.
The article reports that a federal judge found the Pentagon’s actions against Sen. Mark Kelly violated his First Amendment rights. Hegseth said the ruling would be appealed and called Kelly’s conduct sedition. The article also says a grand jury declined to charge six Democrats over a video urging service members not to follow unlawful orders.
Kelly responded by citing the judge’s ruling and saying service members are legally required to disobey unlawful orders. The article presents Kelly as taking the high road and portrays Hegseth’s response with ridicule.
Community verdict
12 VOTES
Counts every outlet’s report of this story. See all 27
- Readers of left-leaning coverage: 50% good look
- Readers of right-leaning coverage: not enough votes yet
Votes cast on this page
Votes cast on this page: ▲ 5 · ◆ 2 · ▼ 5
People in this story
SWIPE →Defense secretary who sought to punish Kelly and said he would appeal the ruling
Senator responding to Hegseth’s sedition accusation and appeal announcement
Kelly's version of this story ↗
President described as calling the Democrats’ video seditious
Part of a bigger story
21 OUTLETSA federal judge blocked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s effort to punish Sen. Mark Kelly. Left-leaning outlets frame the ruling as protecting Kelly’s First Amendment rights from retaliation; one also reports Hegseth’s planned appeal and his characterization of Kelly’s conduct as sedition.
- ARTICLES
- 27
- OUTLETS
- 21
- AVG CRED
- 72
Discussion · 0
Loading comments…