Trump administration fails to secure indictment in connection with Democrats involved in 'illegal orders' video

[LetMyPeopleVote]

President Donald Trump had accused six Democratic lawmakers of "seditious behavior" after they urged members of the military and intelligence communities to refuse unlawful orders.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/doj-fails-secure-indictment-democrats-involved-illegal-orders-video-rcna258385

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration tried and failed on Tuesday to secure an indictment in connection with a video featuring six Democratic lawmakers urging members of the military and intelligence communities not to comply with unlawful orders, three sources familiar with the matter told NBC News.

It was not clear how many of the lawmakers the Trump administration attempted to indict, or if the failed attempt will be addressed in a future court hearing.

The indictment pursued by the office of U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro is the latest example of the Justice Department targeting the president’s perceived political opponents. The government attorneys assigned to the case are political appointees, not career Justice Department prosecutors, according to a source familiar with the investigation.....

In addition to the First Amendment issues, the “speech or debate" clause of the Constitution gives lawmakers on Capitol Hill immunity from prosecution for acts taken within the legislative sphere, a fundamental check on the constitutional separation of powers.

Several Democrats involved in the video recently said they would not cooperate with the Justice Department's probe into the video.

Under longstanding Justice Department policy, the Public Integrity Section would normally have to sign off on every step of an investigation into a sitting member of Congress, especially a case with free speech and speech and debate considerations. But the Trump administration has dismantled the Public Integrity Section, eliminating checks meant to prevent the Justice Department's powers from being abused for political purposes.

[Hassler]

1. Crack open another juice box, Jeanine 😆

[sheshe2]

2. Watching on MS Now.

Good for the Grand jury!

[AllaN01Bear]

3. eggscllent

[barbtries]

4. they're so fucking stupid.

All they did was say follow the law. if krasnov and company had just endorsed that, which they're such profligate liars they could have done, there would be none of this. But no. they love their outrage so much that they did not even stop to think about just doing that. They could have ignored it. The PSA never said, "your commanders are telling you to break the law," but this disgusting bunch of fascists reacted as if they had.

If they had, they still would not have committed a prosecutable crime, because it's the truth.

[Bluetus]

8. They are about 0 for 30 on high profile cases, but that's not the point.

The term "weaponizing" has been overused so much that it has mostly lost its original meaning. But in this case, weaponizing the judicial system is exactly the point.

They are not trying to win any of these cases. They know these are absurd cases. Their goal is to intimidate, slander, stall, redirect, extort, and when those things fail, they at least want to punish people financially. The taxpayers pay Bondi's salary and the salaries of all the prosecutors, so what do they care? Who is paying Mark Kelly's legal costs (and all the others who have suffered this weaponization)?

That is the point. It isn't stupid. It is evil and impeachable, but not stupid. And it isn't really impeachable; because Republicans know that if they try to do the right thing, these same weapons will be used against them.

Where is the Bar Association? The people using our judicial system this was should all be disbarred from their profession for life.

[jonstl08]

5. Waste of money

How many times are they going to waste our tax dollars trying to go after people criticizing this administration?

[Johnny2X2X]

6. That title is totally inaccurate

"Trump administration fails to secure indictment in connection with Democrats involved in 'illegal orders' video"

This title suggests the Democrats in question were issuing illegal orders. This is intentionally misleading. The Dems weren't involved in illegal orders by video or any other way. The Dems produced a video reminding service men and women that their oath prevents them from obeying illegal orders.

A more accurate title would be Dems involved in video telling soldiers not to obey illegal orders.

This stuff matters! That title tells people who don't read the articles that Dems were doing something illegal.,

[LetMyPeopleVote]

7. Grand Jury Rebuffs Justice Dept. Attempt to Indict 6 Democrats in Congress (NYT Gift Subscription)

The rejection was a remarkable rebuke, suggesting that ordinary citizens did not believe that the lawmakers had committed any crimes.

Link to tweet

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/10/us/politics/trump-democrats-illegal-orders-pirro.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LVA.6CKn.AKtD2kERP9jk&smid=nytcore-ios-share

Federal prosecutors in Washington sought and failed on Tuesday to secure an indictment against six Democratic lawmakers who posted a video this fall that enraged President Trump by reminding active-duty members of the military and intelligence community that they were obligated to refuse illegal orders, four people familiar with the matter said.

It was remarkable that the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington — led by Jeanine Pirro, a longtime ally of Mr. Trump’s — authorized prosecutors to go into a grand jury and ask for an indictment of the six members of Congress, all of whom had served in the military or the nation’s spy agencies.

But it was even more remarkable that a group of ordinary citizens sitting on the grand jury in Federal District Court in Washington forcefully rejected Mr. Trump’s bid to label their expression of dissent as a criminal act warranting prosecution.

The move to charge the lawmakers — among them, Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona and Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan — was, by any measure, an extraordinary attempt by Trump appointees to politicize the criminal justice system even for a Justice Department that has repeatedly shattered norms of independence from the White House and followed Mr. Trump’s directives to prosecute his adversaries......

“President Trump is using the F.B.I. as a tool to intimidate and harass members of Congress,” the four House members who took part in the video said in a joint statement. “No amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution.”

Mr. Kelly is also facing a separate investigation by the Pentagon into what military officials described as “serious allegations of misconduct.”

[twodogsbarking]

9. So telling someone to not break the law is breaking the law?

Tell it to me like I am a Supreme Court Justice.

[Volaris]

10. Everything Dear Leader does is great, and dissent needs to be punished.'

There. I've just told you what the SC gets told every time trumps govt is standing in front of the Bench.

The PROBLEM IS, that half of them agree with that statement, instead of physically throwing law volumes at their head, and then kicking them out of court.

[MineralMan]

11. If those are the best prosecutors Pam Bondi can scare up,

the DOJ is worthless altogether.

[Martin68]

12. Another win for democracy.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

13. MaddowBlog-Dems enraged after Trump's DOJ targeted veterans with charges of seditious conspiracy

“If these f—ers think that they’re going to intimidate us and threaten and bully me into silence … they have another thing coming,” one Democrat said.

Dems enraged after Trump’s DOJ targeted veterans with charges of seditious conspiracy - MS NOW

apple.news/AwXl5tcTUQx2...

— (@oc88.bsky.social) 2026-02-11T16:55:16.817Z

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/dems-enraged-after-trumps-doj-targeted-veterans-with-charges-of-seditious-conspiracy

In legal circles, it’s known as “no bill.” That’s the label used to describe what happens when prosecutors go to a grand jury to secure an indictment and jury members reject the effort.

If it seems as if the phrase has been coming up more frequently in recent months, it’s not your imagination. Donald Trump’s Justice Department has run into “no bill” setbacks repeatedly of late, in cases ranging from former FBI Director James Comey to New York Attorney General Letitia James to Sean Dunn (better known as the “sandwich guy”).

The latest example, however, is arguably the most dramatic: MS NOW reported that a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., has declined to indict at least two Democratic senators — Arizona’s Mark Kelly and Michigan’s Elissa Slotkin — on charges of seditious conspiracy......

That’s precisely what happened. As The New York Times summarized:

It was remarkable that the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington — led by Jeanine Pirro, a longtime ally of Mr. Trump’s — authorized prosecutors to go into a grand jury and ask for an indictment. … But it was even more remarkable that a group of ordinary citizens sitting on the grand jury in Federal District Court in Washington forcefully rejected Mr. Trump’s bid to label their expression of dissent as a criminal act warranting prosecution.

That’s certainly correct, though I’d add that it’s also remarkable to note the crime that Trump’s DOJ accused the Democratic lawmakers of committing: Seditious conspiracy is a serious felony charge that’s rarely pursued. The idea that members of Congress crossed that line, and effectively conspired to undermine the authority of the government by reminding service members to follow the law and reject illegal orders, is insane......

Democratic Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, a decorated Army veteran who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, was even more candid. “If these f–––ers think that they’re going to intimidate us and threaten and bully me into silence, and they’re going to go after political opponents and get us to back down, they have another thing coming,” Crow said. “The tide is turning.”

As for the party’s leadership, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries was also unreserved, declaring in a written statement: “The Grand Jury upheld and honored the Constitution, doing what Donald Trump and his corrupt Republican sycophants lack the character to do. The attempt to indict Members of Congress for exercising their constitutionally-protected First Amendment rights is another shameful example of the cancerous rot that engulfs the Trump administration.”

The New York Democrat concluded, “Donald Trump, Jeanine Pirro and the corrupt political hacks at the Department of Justice will not silence or intimidate us. Every attempt to weaponize the criminal justice system will only strengthen our resolve as we work to end the National nightmare that extreme MAGA Republicans are inflicting on the country. They will all be held accountable for their lawlessness.”

[LetMyPeopleVote]

14. No grand jurors found the Trump DOJ met low probable cause threshold in failed indictment of Democratic lawmakers

The DOJ could not get even one of the 23 grand jurors to agree to indict this "ham sandwich" of a case.

No grand jurors found the Trump DOJ met low probable cause threshold in failed indictment of Democratic lawmakers

www.nbcnews.com/politics/tru...

— Ryan J. Reilly “paints a vivid and urgent portrait of… disarray” (@ryanjreilly.com) 2026-02-11T15:46:05.188Z

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/live-blog/trump-bondi-epstein-congress-netanyahu-iran-dhs-ice-poll-live-updates-rcna257992#rcrd99859

None of the D.C. grand jurors who heard the Trump administration’s pitch on why they should indict Democratic lawmakers over a video urging members of the military and intelligence communities to uphold their oaths believed the Justice Department had met the low threshold of probable cause, two sources familiar with the matter told NBC News.

It’s exceedingly rare for a federal grand jury to reject prosecutors’ attempts to secure an indictment, since the process is stacked in the government’s favor. Federal grand juries need a minimum of 16 members to have a quorum, and they max out at 23 members. Just 12 grand jurors need to agree that the government had probable cause to indict, a threshold much lower than the unanimous “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard that a petit jury needs to convict.

In 2016, the Justice Department investigated more than 151,000 suspects, but grand juries returned just six “no bills,” per DOJ statistics. The vast majority of assistant U.S. attorneys will go their entire careers without being rejected by a grand jury like this. As NBC News previously reported, the lawyers who attempted to bring the case are political appointees, not career prosecutors.

It’s unclear if the office of U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro will push forward and try to indict the Democratic members again.

[Playingmantis]

15. Yes they failed to indict some for advising someone not to do something illegal!