DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Grand jury declines criminal charges against 6 Democrats who urged military to reject illegal orders

Washington — A federal grand jury on Tuesday refused to indict six congressional Democrats who drew President Trump's ire last year by taping a video telling members of the military that they must reject "illegal orders," according to three sources familiar with the matter, including one within the Justice Department.

The Democratic lawmakers are the latest Trump foes that the Justice Department has sought criminal charges against, following former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. After the lawmakers' video was posted in November, the president called their comments "seditious" and demanded that they be "arrested and put on trial."

The news of the declined indictment was first reported by The New York Times.

CBS News has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.

Two sources who were briefed on the matter told CBS News the Justice Department sought to charge the lawmakers under a criminal statute known as 18 U.S.C. § 2387.

That law threatens a 10-year maximum prison sentence for anybody who "advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military." It requires intent to "interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military."

All six Democrats publicly condemned the move and applauded the grand jury.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan said the president was seeking to "weaponize our justice system against his perceived enemies," while Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona called it an "outrageous abuse of power." Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado wrote in a statement, "Don't Give Up the Ship," and Rep. Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania said "I will not be intimidated for a single second."

Meanwhile, Rep. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire said the grand jury "honored our Constitution" and Rep. Chrissy Houlihan of Pennsylvania called the grand jurors' refusal to indict "good news for the Constitution."

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina criticized the move by the Justice Department and praised the grand jury for declining to charge the lawmakers.

"Political lawfare waged by either side undermines America's criminal justice system, which is the gold standard of the world. Thankfully in this instance, a jury saw the attempted indictments for what they really were," he wrote on X on Wednesday morning. "Political lawfare is not normal, not acceptable, and needs to stop."

It is highly unusual for grand juries to decline indictments, but the Justice Department has struggled with grand juries in recent months, especially in politically charged cases. After a federal judge tossed out the federal charges against Comey and James in Virginia, two different grand juries refused to re-indict James on bank fraud charges.

"The attempt to indict these members of Congress is shocking, more so than the indictments of James Comey and Letitia James. It is not enough that the grand jury declined to indict. Every Justice Department attorney involved in submitting this indictment for the grand jury's consideration has violated the rules of professional conduct, including supervisors," said Kyle Boynton, a former federal prosecutor who also advised lawyers at the department on professional conduct rules for the Professional Responsibility Advisory Board.

"No lawyer, competent or otherwise, could have looked at the statute and concluded this plainly protected speech constituted a felony," Boynton added. "Because the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility will do nothing, the District Court should immediately begin an inquiry into this misconduct and make appropriate referrals to the DC Bar."

Tuesday's attempted indictment stemmed from a 90-second video in which the six Democrats — all of whom are military veterans or former intelligence community members — told military personnel that they "must refuse illegal orders."

The lawmakers said the video was prompted by a series of proposals by Mr. Trump to use the military in ways they view as illegal, like his 2016 suggestion to kill the families of terrorists or his threat to send troops to Chicago. The video also came amid a monthslong campaign of U.S. strikes against alleged drug-carrying boats that some congressional Democrats have argued is illegal.

Legal experts say members of the military are required to follow legal orders, but they aren't required to follow illegal ones, and in certain cases, when orders are "manifestly unlawful," they are required to disobey them.

But Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued the video "sows doubt and confusion — which only puts our warriors in danger." Meanwhile, Mr. Trump accused the Democrats of "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!"

A week after the video was posted, the lawmakers were notified that the FBI had opened an inquiry into the matter. Last month, most of the Democrats who appeared in the video said they received inquiries from the Justice Department, including interview requests from U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro in some cases.

In Kelly's case, the Pentagon attempted to downgrade the retired Navy captain's rank and retirement pay, accusing him of undermining the chain of command. Kelly sued Hegseth over the move, which he called an act of political retribution. That case is still pending.

The effort to indict the lawmakers has drawn stiff criticism from Democrats. Sen. Adam Schiff of California, a longtime Trump foil, wrote on X Tuesday that the six members of Congress were merely "stating the obvious" in their video about illegal orders.

"That the DOJ would even contemplate such an action demonstrates what a repressive regime is now running this country," Schiff said.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, told reporters late Tuesday the Democrats "probably should be indicted."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/grand-jury-declines-charges-against-6-democrats/

Good. It was always a thin case, at best.

The whole thing was political grandstanding by both sides and both sides just need to let it go.

ahh, I am not sure it it's both sides this time Purp.. Hegseth started it when the brought generals and admirals into a meeting talked to them about following order and if you don't think you can, retire and we will wish you well on your way out. Trump was not better when he spoke on the subject either.... That I think was the reason these 6 people felt the need to do that video. I've not seen any other time that anyone felt it was important to set up a video like that.

Be that as it may, they didn't nothing wrong... It just chapped Trump and Hegseths ass.....That is what they are guilty of..... And I applaud the effort

I don't believe that political grandstanding is the same thing as trying to indict people falsely on felony charges. This isn't the first time they've done this just lately. It's becoming a pattern with them.

Whether you like it or not, whether you acknowledge it or not, what Hegseth said was 100% correct to say, and also is no different than any other administration except that it was made into an event and it REALLY is a non-event.




No, that merely provided the opportunity for their grandstanding. Do not delude yourself into thinking it was anything more than that, because there is a 0% chance of it being anything more.


They VERY carefully walked the line which is why a grand jury is correct to decline it because proving the subversive intent is nearly impossible.
It chapped my ass, too, because they all knew EXACTLY what they were really saying while ignoring that all of the orders being given were 100% lawful. This wasn't a benign statement, it was pure b.s. - and yes, grandstanding. Political theatrics.

Yes, they were saying to follow the law........................

U.S. military personnel are legally obligated to obey lawful orders but must refuse unlawful or illegal orders, a principle rooted in the Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92

Something Mark Kelly spent his entire military career adhering to. Something that had been brought into question under this president.

I think anyone that doesn't see that is fooling themselves no matter what words they wish to label that with.

I'm pretty sure I am WAY more familiar with the U.C.M.J. than you, and I also know that it is a Mandatory Duty to obey lawful orders and regulations, as well as the FACT that ALL ORDERS are PRESUMED LAWFUL unless they contradict the Constitution. PERIOD.

It seems we agree 100% then.

Judge blocks Pentagon from downgrading Sen. Mark Kelly's military rank, pay

A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Pentagon from downgrading the military retirement rank and pay of Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, finding that the government had "trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms."

A retired Navy captain, Kelly drew the Trump administration's ire after he and five other Democratic lawmakers posted a video urging members of the military to "refuse illegal orders."

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon's order prohibits the Defense Department and the Trump administration from taking any adverse action against Kelly to reduce his retirement rank and pay.

"This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees," Leon wrote. "After all, as Bob Dylan famously said, 'You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.'"

Leon's ruling comes a month after Kelly sued Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, arguing that he was the target of "extreme rhetoric and punitive retribution" by the Trump administration.

Kelly asked Leon to set aside Hegseth's recent moves to demote him and cut his military pension, and to block the enforcement of any punishment against him.

Leon's decision came two days after federal prosecutors in U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro's office failed to secure an indictment against Kelly and the other Democratic lawmakers who appeared in the video. Prosecutors had hoped to charge them with violating a federal law that makes it a crime to counsel or cause "insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or reversal of duty" by military members, sources previously told CBS News.

Kelly and his colleagues came under fierce criticism by the Trump administration after they posted the video in November. The video was published amid the military buildup around Venezuela and strikes against alleged drug boats. The other five Democrats were also either military veterans or members of the intelligence community, but they have not faced any adverse action from the Defense Department because they do not draw retirement pay from the U.S. military.

Soon after the video was published, President Trump and Hegseth lambasted the lawmakers for the comments, with the president claiming that their statements amounted to "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!"

Hegseth claimed Kelly's statements "undermined the chain of command" and constituted "conduct unbecoming an officer." The Pentagon announced it was conducting a review of misconduct allegations against Kelly to determine whether he should be recalled to active duty to face court-martial proceedings.

The Defense Department said in December it was escalating its review into a command investigation. Hegseth then announced that the Pentagon had "initiated retirement grade determination proceedings" that could result in a "reduction in his retired grade" and "a corresponding reduction in retired pay." Hegseth also said he issued a formal letter to censure Kelly, citing his "reckless misconduct."

In a statement, Kelly said Leon's order "made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said. But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they too can be censured or demoted just for speaking out. That's why I couldn't let it stand."

"I also know that this might not be over yet, because this President and this administration do not know how to admit when they're wrong," Kelly continued. "One thing is for sure: however hard the Trump administration may fight to punish me and silence others, I will fight ten times harder. This is too important."

CBS News has reached out to the Defense Department and Justice Department for comment.

At a recent court hearing, Leon grilled the Justice Department and expressed strong reservations about the Pentagon's efforts. Active-duty military officers typically face limitations on their right to free speech to promote discipline and obedience, but the military is now seeking to extend those limits to retired service members like Kelly.

"That's never been done," Leon told Justice Department attorney John Bailey during the Feb. 3 hearing, adding that the government did not have a single case to support the argument.

"You're asking me to do something that the Supreme Court has never done," Leon said. "That's a bit of a stretch, is it not?"

In his ruling on Thursday, Leon reiterated those concerns again.

"Secretary Hegseth relies on the well-established doctrine that military servicemembers enjoy less vigorous First Amendment protections given the fundamental obligation for obedience and discipline in the armed forces," Leon wrote.

"Unfortunately for Secretary Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military. This Court will not be the first to do so!"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-...ading-sen-mark-kellys-military-rank-pay/

The key point in all of this squabbling is that the judge found that the U.C.M.J. does not and cannot apply to a person who no longer part of the military and is a private citizen.

On top of that they are representatives.

End of story.

Yes, the six were pissed about some of the things that Trump and Hegseth have said and are doing. Tons of example there involving military in the Caribbean. So it was a bit of political grandstanding. But no different the Hegseth being skewered on SNL. And no different the the grandstanding of Trump, Levitt, Noem, and Bondi.

I get how people could form the opinion that was political grandstanding. But when the other side actually convenes a grand jury in an attempt to prosecute and imprison them for that? Trying to minimize the huge contrast between those two things by shrugging it off by saying such a threat to their freedom was nothing more than "The whole thing was political grandstanding by both sides" is a sad commentary to the direction our country has headed in.

These two things are NOT the same.