This video was published on Monday, 24 November 2025
Democrats celebrated after a Clinton-appointed judge threw out the James Comey indictment and Letitia James mortgage fraud case, ruling the prosecutor lacked lawful authority.
This decision echoes the earlier dismissal of Jack Smith’s case against Trump and leaves both cases open to future re-filing.
At the same time, Senator Mark Kelly is under Pentagon review for appearing in a video urging troops to defy illegal orders from President Trump, despite admitting he could not name any, a move Pete Hegseth says used Kelly’s rank in a way that could bring real consequences under military law.
Judge Cameron McGowan Currie’s Background and Recent Rulings
Cameron McGowan Currie is a senior U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina, appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994. She received her commission on March 11, 1994, after being nominated on January 27, 1994, and confirmed by the Senate on March 10, 1994. Born in Florence, SC, in 1948, she earned her bachelor’s degree from USC in 1970 and attended George Washington University Law School. Her legal career includes clerking for U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur L. Burnett, private practice, and serving as an assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., and South Carolina before becoming a magistrate judge for South Carolina in 1984. She also served as an adjunct professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law.
Judge Currie recently dismissed criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. These indictments, which President Donald Trump had sought, were filed by Lindsey Halligan, whom Trump appointed as a federal prosecutor. Currie’s rulings, which were fewer than 60 pages in total, found that Halligan’s appointment violated federal law and the Constitution because successive appointments for interim U.S. Attorney must be made by judges from that district, not the Attorney General, after 120 days. Halligan was sworn in by Attorney General Pam Bondi and found to have been unlawfully serving in the role since September 22. The rulings are a significant victory for Comey and James, who had argued their prosecutions were retaliatory.
In her 29-page decision, Judge Currie cited various authorities, including Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and the late Antonin Scalia, as well as U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon. Beyond these recent dismissals, Judge Currie has handled other notable cases. She denied an appeal by convicted murderer Alex Murdaugh to block the release of his jailhouse phone calls to the media. In 2009, she ruled that the state of South Carolina could not issue license plates with a cross and the phrase “I Believe,” equating it to an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. Additionally, in the case of United States v. Harrison, she issued a longer-than-usual sentence for a gun-related crime, citing the defendant’s past record and the need to deter future offenses.
Military Chain of Command and Recent Controversy
The chain of command is a hierarchical structure that outlines the line of authority and responsibility through which orders are passed within an organization, particularly in a military context. This system ensures that each individual receives instructions from a single supervisor, who in turn reports to their immediate superior. The chain of command extends from the lowest ranks to the highest authority, such as the Commandant of the Marine Corps or the President, as commander-in-chief, in the United States. In business, it clarifies reporting relationships, aids in communication, and establishes who makes decisions. Multiple sources define it as a series of positions of authority or rank within an organization, ordered from lowest to highest. It ensures accountability, lines of authority, and the power to make decisions. The chain of command also brings structure to a business, which is essential for both hybrid and remote teams.
Recently, six Democratic lawmakers, including Senator Mark Kelly, released a video urging U.S. military members to refuse illegal orders from President Donald Trump. This video led to a formal inquiry by the Pentagon, which is examining whether the remarks undermined lawful civilian authority or encouraged selective disobedience within the ranks. The Department of War announced that Senator Kelly, a retired Navy captain, could be recalled to active duty for court-martial proceedings or for administrative measures related to his participation in the video. The FBI’s counterterrorism division is also opening an inquiry into the video, according to Senator Elissa Slotkin.
Perspectives
Lawmakers’ video undermines national security and constitutes seditious behavior.
Senator Mark Kelly’s actions in the ‘Seditious Six’ video undermine America’s national security, leading to potential recall for court-martial proceedings.
President Donald Trump characterized the video as ‘seditious behavior from traitors’ punishable by death, warning of its danger to the country.
The Pentagon views the lawmakers’ message as potentially undermining lawful civilian authority or encouraging selective disobedience within military ranks.
Stephen Miller accused the Democratic lawmakers of attempting to ‘create a color revolution’ through their video.
Military members are obligated to disobey unlawful orders, and the Democrats’ video reminds them of this constitutional duty.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) requires military members to disobey unlawful orders, which is part of their oath to uphold the Constitution, not just to the president.
Former Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer Glenn Kirschner stated that Trump administration officials could face prosecution for carrying out orders to investigate and prosecute Democrats.
The Pentagon is now reportedly considering reducing Senator Mark Kelly’s military rank and pension instead of a court-martial, which some see as a ‘downshift’ from previous threats.
