By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A federal grand jury declined to indict six Democratic lawmakers who posted a video encouraging service members and intelligence officials to disobey illegal orders from the Trump administration. The Justice Department’s investigation into the 90-second video, which warned of “threats to our Constitution” from within the U.S., was seen as an effort to silence dissent. The grand jury’s decision serves as a rebuke to the administration’s attempts to portray the lawmakers, all with military or intelligence backgrounds, as undermining presidential authority. This outcome is an extraordinary rebuke of the Justice Department’s willingness to prosecute individuals speaking out against the administration.
Read the original article here
The recent decision by a federal grand jury to decline indicting Democratic lawmakers who encouraged service members to refuse illegal orders from the Trump administration is, frankly, a significant development that speaks volumes. It’s widely understood that securing an indictment from a grand jury is typically a relatively straightforward process; prosecutors present their case, and if there appears to be probable cause, an indictment is usually issued. The fact that this did not happen here suggests that even in a process that leans towards indicting, common sense and the rule of law prevailed.
At the heart of this matter was a video featuring six Democratic lawmakers, including Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly. This short clip, which clearly agitated the Trump administration, conveyed a message of protecting the Constitution and explicitly advised military and intelligence personnel to disregard any unlawful directives they might receive. The administration, however, interpreted this as a dangerous challenge to presidential authority, an accusation that the grand jury’s decision effectively refutes.
The outcome serves as a powerful rebuke to the administration’s narrative, which sought to portray these lawmakers, many with distinguished military or intelligence backgrounds, as undermining the very foundations of the Commander-in-Chief’s role. While the specific individuals facing scrutiny within the group remain unclear, the Justice Department’s pursuit of this case, and its subsequent failure to obtain an indictment, is undeniably an extraordinary move. It highlights an unprecedented willingness by the Department of Justice to investigate and potentially prosecute individuals for speaking out against the president and his administration’s policies.
The video, released in November, immediately drew fierce condemnation from the Trump administration, with the president himself going so far as to label the lawmakers’ actions as sedition, a charge he suggested could be punishable by death. Within weeks, several of the lawmakers involved, including Slotkin and Kelly, confirmed they had been contacted by federal prosecutors regarding an investigation into their conduct. The idea that urging adherence to the law could be construed as sedition, especially with such dire potential consequences, is frankly astonishing.
It’s crucial to remember the context: the grand jury’s declination means that, at this stage, the legal system has not found sufficient grounds to proceed with formal charges. This implies a recognition, even within the confines of a grand jury’s review, that the lawmakers’ message was not inherently criminal. The notion that simply telling individuals to uphold their oath and refuse illegal orders – which is, in essence, what they did – could be a prosecutable offense is deeply unsettling and, thankfully, seems to have been recognized as such by the grand jury.
The language used in some discussions, particularly concerning the severity of the accusations and potential punishments, has been quite alarming. The idea of sedition being “punishable by DEATH” is chilling, and it’s heartening to see that the grand jury did not succumb to such hyperbolic interpretations. The principle of a fair and impartial jury is paramount, and their decision suggests that, at least in this instance, that impartiality was maintained.
The framing of this event as a “failure” to indict is problematic. A grand jury’s role is to determine if there’s enough evidence to bring charges. When they decline to do so, it signifies that, in their assessment, that threshold was not met. Therefore, rather than a failure, it can be seen as the grand jury fulfilling its duty by upholding the rule of law and recognizing the legality of urging adherence to legal principles. It demonstrates that perhaps, despite anxieties, there remains a functional line of defense against what could be perceived as politically motivated prosecutions.
The situation highlights a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps a deliberate misrepresentation, of the military’s oath. Service members are sworn to protect the Constitution, and this includes the crucial obligation to disobey any orders that violate that Constitution or established law. The lawmakers’ video simply reiterated this core principle, reminding individuals of their duty. To suggest that this reminder is illegal is to fundamentally misunderstand the legal and ethical framework of military service.
Ultimately, the grand jury’s decision not to indict these Democratic lawmakers for urging service members to disobey illegal orders is a significant affirmation of legal principles. It suggests that even under intense political pressure, the justice system can, and in this case did, act to prevent what many perceive as frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions. It’s a moment that offers a small but important restoration of faith in the idea that the law, and not just political expediency, will guide such crucial decisions.