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

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Source: NBC

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.

A Justice Department spokesman and a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday night.



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

---

[BumRushDaShow]

1. Another "Pirro Special".

(NYT had a breaking on this)

[underpants]

15. I think this is at least 15 failed indictments by her office

I can’t find the article but there were 9 last September alone.

[BumRushDaShow]

18. Found one from September that said "at least 11" (and that was for back then apparently starting in August)

'This creates some real concerns': Judge says US Attorney Pirro's office has dismissed 11 felony cases over the past month

[underpants]

19. So this is at least 17. That's exactly the article I was looking for

👍

[BumRushDaShow]

20. And that's just out of that one office

the same is repeating nationwide.

[wolfie001]

2. This pig should've been jailed for going 119 mph on a NY highway

Repulsive harridan.

[Deuxcents]

3. There's no comment because it was a lost cause from the start.

[CaptainTruth]

4. I'm so old I can remember when we had a First Amendment that protected free speech.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

5. And Pirro loses....again.

How long before this Trumpedo loving loser is tossed under the bus by Trumpedo?

[riversedge]

13. Her losing makes my heart smile

[underpants]

16. My count is 15 failed indictments...so far

I think this is at least 15 failed indictments by her office.
I can’t find the article but there were 9 last September alone.

[mdbl]

6. Thank you citizens for recognizing a fraudulent charge

I'm glad there's still some people left that do the right thing. Now will the court sanction miss drunk for wasting tax payer money on this?

[MuirHero]

7. Pirro is a drunk and an absolute disgrace.

[Skittles]

8. it was never gonna happen

this was all bullshit red meat for the moronic MAGAts

[jgmiller]

9. She has to have set the record for failed federal grand jury indictments by now

You almost never hear of them not getting an indictment and she's up to at least 4 isn't she? That has to be a record. Oh and lets not forget somehow managing to lose a misdemeaner jury trial. Somewhere some law professor is preparing a lecture using her as a cautionary tale.

[MLWR]

14. Her batting average can't be all that great.

[underpants]

17. 15 by my count.

I think this is at least 15 failed indictments by her office.
I can’t find the article but there were 9 last September alone.

[Fil1957]

10. The ketchup will be flying tonight!

[joanbarnes]

11. I should have invested in catsup stock.

[J_William_Ryan]

12. This is fundamentally fascist -

the Trump regime attempting to use the power of the state to silence political opponents, in violation of the First Amendment.

The criminal Trump regime is precisely why the Framers ratified the First Amendment.

The Democratic lawmakers did nothing to justify an indictment; unlike Trump, they violated no laws.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

21. The regime had NO case to begin with...

What is written cannot be unwritten just because it tells the truth.

The US Constitution falls into the same category. The 6 on the SCoTUS need to get that through their thick heads as well.

[travelingthrulife]

22. Where are Elmo and DOGE to put a stop to the money these people are wasting on frivolous lawsuits.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

23. 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.”

[LetMyPeopleVote]

24. 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]

25. 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.

[DJ Synikus Makisimus]

26. That was a foregone conclusion, BUT

they OWNED the libs (at least for a hot FOX News minute) AND got them to spend what was probably a lot on legal fees. Now they can stir outrage among the MAGAts over "liberal judges."

[LetMyPeopleVote]

27. Deadline Legal Blog-Grand jury's refusal to indict Democrats joins a stunning pattern of DOJ rejections

The decision to not approve charges against Democratic lawmakers was remarkable in its own right but is only the latest grand jury rejection in Trump’s second term.

Link to tweet

https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/grand-jury-rejection-trump-doj-kelly-slotkin-dunn-lemon

The most important story of Donald Trump’s second term just might be one that has been unfolding quietly behind closed doors, as grand jurors have been rejecting some of his Justice Department’s most politicized charges, preventing them from even making it to trial.

So, while the rejection of charges against Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday was remarkable in its own right, it was only the latest data point in a stunning pattern that has emerged over the past year.

The Trump DOJ’s failure to secure an indictment in Washington against Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich.; Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz.; and others follows its failure to convince grand jurors in Virginia to revive charges against another Democrat, New York Attorney General Letitia James. Slotkin, Kelly and other Democratic lawmakers had released a video urging soldiers not to follow illegal orders, after which the Republican president accused them in a social media post of “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

Through their refusal to indict, the grand jurors in D.C. effectively said the senators’ actions shouldn’t be punishable at all.

Just as importantly, the grand jury rebuffs haven’t only come to the aid of prominent figures. Grand jurors also have stood up for everyday people whom the Trump DOJ has sought to charge with assaults on law enforcement officers carrying out his federal occupation in Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles. Think sandwich thrower Sean Dunn — or Sidney Reid, whom grand jurors refused to indict a whopping three times. In both Dunn’s case and Reid’s, prosecutors plowed forward to trial on misdemeanor charges — which didn’t require grand jury approval — and the D.C. trial juries returned not guilty verdicts....

Against that backdrop, it’s unremarkable that federal prosecutors could get an indictment against Lemon or anyone else they set their sights on. Grand jury presentations are typically the start of a case, not the end. Therefore, securing an indictment in a given case doesn’t say a whole lot about the case’s prospects, with trial juries still standing in the way of any prosecution that makes it that far, where the government needs to prove its case to everyday citizens beyond a reasonable doubt.