By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration reportedly attempted to indict six Democratic lawmakers over a video encouraging military and intelligence personnel to refuse unlawful orders. The lawmakers, all with military or intelligence backgrounds, asserted that public servants have the right to defy illegal commands. This effort, led by a Trump appointee, is viewed as a continuation of the Justice Department targeting perceived political opponents, raising significant First Amendment and constitutional immunity concerns. Despite these challenges, and while some lawmakers faced separate disciplinary action, the attempt to secure indictments ultimately failed.
Read the original article here
The Trump administration’s attempt to secure indictments against Democrats involved in a video concerning illegal orders has conspicuously failed, a development that strikes many as unsurprising given the administration’s track record with legal challenges. It seems almost baffling that such an effort was even initiated, especially when the core of the issue revolves around advocating for adherence to the law, which, by its very nature, isn’t an illegal act.
The sheer audacity of attempting this kind of legal maneuver is, frankly, mind-boggling. One might surmise that such a tactic, if employed by Democrats, would alienate a significant portion of their base, perhaps as much as eighty percent. However, for Republicans, it appears to be just another day at the office, a routine occurrence rather than an exceptional event. Evidence from various legal trackers suggests a rather dismal success rate for the Trump administration, with approximately seventy percent of their cases being lost. Any victories that do materialize often seem to hinge on technicalities or are a result of utilizing the Supreme Court’s shadow docket, a far cry from substantial legal triumphs.
This approach appears to be less about genuine legal pursuit and more about employing litigation as a propaganda tool. The aim seems to be to create the public perception that Democrats are being held accountable, even when these efforts yield no concrete outcomes. The narrative is often that action has been taken, and for many followers, this is enough to register as a victory for Trump, without them delving into the actual results.
There’s a strong sentiment that this kind of manipulation of the legal system is not only insulting but potentially illegal in itself. However, in a climate where the Supreme Court and Congress are perceived as not fulfilling their duties, the boundaries of what is deemed illegal can become remarkably blurred. The individual at the center of this particular attempt is viewed by some as remarkably ineffective in her role. In contrast, seasoned prosecutors are often cited as being capable of indicting virtually anyone, even something as mundane as a sandwich, highlighting the perceived incompetence of those driving this particular legal crusade.
The appearance of this individual has drawn comment, with some finding it perplexing and even questioning her well-being based on her facial expressions. The notion of her attempting such a case is seen by many as ludicrous, painting her as little more than a comical figure, a clown in a legal setting. The suggestion of her being heavily made up, like a clown, further emphasizes this perception.
Furthermore, there are pointed accusations regarding her personal habits and qualifications, suggesting she is a significant drinker and utterly unfit for the demanding role of a U.S. Attorney. This individual is seen by some as having consistently undermined the administration, leading to surprise that she hasn’t already been dismissed. The act of a leader repeatedly taking legal action against their own people raises questions about their leadership style.
In stark contrast, another figure, JOHNSON, is mentioned in a negative light, accused of protecting individuals involved in deeply disturbing criminal activities. This is contrasted with a Trump appointee who is, ironically, exceeding expectations, but in the realm of “effective incompetence,” suggesting their failures are noteworthy in their own right. It’s as if the entire endeavor was a colossal waste of time and taxpayer money, orchestrated by individuals deemed utter buffoons. The recurring observation of her appearing inebriated and disoriented on television further fuels the narrative of her unsuitability.
The question arises: could the lack of a viable case be because those targeted genuinely did nothing wrong? One remembers this figure, identified as Jeanine Pirro, solely as a television personality, a judge on a show. Her current role and actions are seen by some as a consequence of succumbing to “MAGA poison,” a sign of a failed prosecutor. The question is then posed: do these individuals ever secure actual legal victories? The prospect of Trump directing his ire towards “woke grand juries,” potentially alleging they are “stacked with trans Democrats,” and advocating for the dismantling of jury systems altogether, is seen as an inevitable escalation. The phrase “something something ham sandwich” resurfaces, a dismissive reference to the supposed lack of substance in their legal pursuits.
The very act of initiating this legal process is considered criminal by some, with the primary objective being to generate headlines, which they achieved. The next logical step, satirically, would be indictments for something as basic as breathing air. This is particularly relevant when considering that actual military training traditionally includes extensive instruction on the legality and illegality of orders.
The inclusion of “illegal orders” in the article’s title, even with quotation marks, is questioned. The focus on this particular case stands in stark contrast to the perceived lack of media attention given to other serious issues, such as instances of police misconduct or refusals to investigate alleged crimes. The media is accused of complicity in this selective reporting.
While the Trump administration’s losses in court are viewed as a positive outcome, the financial burden placed on the targeted individuals to defend themselves is a significant concern. There’s apprehension about what might happen when individuals without the resources to mount a defense are subjected to similar tactics. This is seen as a blatant waste of taxpayer money, both absurd and entirely unnecessary.
Ironically, Trump himself signed an executive order aimed at preventing the weaponization of the Department of Justice for political purposes, a directive that seems to be directly contradicted by his administration’s actions, especially concerning prosecutions related to the January 6th events and Trump himself. The implication is that such accusations often serve as admissions of their own behavior. The historical perception of the DOJ as an institution with a near-perfect success rate is contrasted with the current administration’s efforts, which are seen as significantly lowering that average.
The appearance of the individual in question is also attributed by some to excessive cosmetic procedures, specifically “botox, lots and lots of botox,” suggesting an attempt to mask perceived flaws. The inability to discern her hand movements is also noted. She is described unflinchingly as a traitor, and the idea of a leader harboring animosity towards a majority of the population is questioned.
The assertion that these individuals are not at fault is strongly refuted, and the reliance on the courts as the sole bulwark against what is perceived as authoritarian overreach is deeply unsettling. The concept of “waste and fraud” is invoked, suggesting that this is a recurring theme.
It is suggested that those accused should consider suing for violations of their First Amendment rights, with the discovery process potentially revealing crucial information. Furthermore, it’s proposed that the accused could demonstrably donate any proceeds to charitable organizations, drawing a contrast with the current administration’s alleged lack of transparency regarding such matters. The irony of a party that self-identifies with “Law and Order” having an extreme reaction to Democrats advocating for legal compliance, leading to a lawsuit, is not lost on observers.
The unwavering conviction of some conservative voters, that their leader “still ‘got their nose’,” is noted, a sentiment apparently rooted in childhood experiences. At a minimum, the legal licenses of all DOJ lawyers involved in this endeavor should be revoked, given their perceived disgrace. This entire situation is viewed by many as the fundamental problem. There is a sense of futility, with little expectation of swift resolution.
The fact that a Grand Jury could not even return a “true bill” means that the only cost incurred was by the U.S. Government, a point that underscores the inefficiency of the pursuit. The individual in question is definitively identified as Jeanine Pirro, and her current appearance is attributed by some to excessive alcohol consumption, with descriptions of her slurring words on her previous show and continued heavy drinking.