The real story isn't that the grand jury rejected Trump's case

Source: Alternet.org · Bias: Left

Summary

After citizen rejection of a threatened federal prosecution, what all sides seem to accept is that the very attempt to bring criminal charges against six members of Congress for reminding the military and intelligence officers to question orders they believe illegal has been extraordinary.The prosecution effort led by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro after spurring from Donald Trump directly abridges free speech, ignores the responsibility of members of Congress to speak out, and the most obvious – that the actions by the six repeatedly what already is in the law and in military training codes. It is, as most informed critics say, more a reflection of a dictatorial regime than any understandable legal case.What they do not agree on is whether the decision by a grand jury last week to reject any charges – as well as a separate judicial order halting Pentagon hounding of Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz. – should end the matter. From all reports, Justice, which is silent on the matter, is seeking a new venue to try filing charges before a new grand jury.Obviously, those inside the insular Donald Trump circle disagree basically with the rest of the world about whether there even is a problem here, never mind criminal charges. Trump himself had called for charges of sedition that could involve hanging for members of Congress to speak their mind in a video.The basic tenet – that active-duty military and intelligence agents not only can, but are obliged by the law, their behavioral code and their oaths – to refuse orders they think are illegal is not at legal issue. What is at issue is that Trump does not like what these six say or the implication that Trump is issuing orders that could be considered "illegal."But there is a lot still to sort about the why and how of the case and the dangers it represents for a Trump presidency now fully devoted to selectively prosecuting anyone who speaks or acts in opposition, in or out of office. We have the array of cases against former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, an investigation of Fed Board Chair Jerome Powell, and more in cases that refuse to end.The Grand Jury Said 'No'Of course, the grand jurors did not appear publicly to explain the decision. What we know, from sources to news organizations, is that not one voted for indictment on a proposed felony crime that makes it illegal to "interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States," not the more serious sedition.Not only is vocal Trump loyalist Pirro a political appointee, but the two prosecutors presenting the charges also were political appointees — Steven Vandervelden, a former colleague of Pirro in the district attorney's office in New York, and Carlton Davis, a former staffer for House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer, R-Ky. When it came time to vote, none of the grand jurors agreed there was sufficient probable cause to charge any of the lawmakers with a crime. The point is that professional prosecution staff had distanced themselves from the case.Unusual as it is for the Justice Department to be blanked – again – by a citizen grand jury that only hears the prosecution side of a case, that rejection should end it. Apparently not so in this case, since we are told that Justice is shopping for another shot at indictment of the six.The six include Senators Kelly, former Navy captain, aviator and astronaut, and Elise Slotkin, D-Mich., intelligence officer, Representatives Jason Crow, former Army ranger from Colorado, Maggie Goodlander, Navy veteran from New Hampshire, Chrissy Houlahan, former Air Force officer, and Chris Deluzio, former Navy officer, both from Pennsylvania.In Congress, many public and more private comments to journalists and one another, reflect anger and astonishment at Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi for greenlighting criminal charges against fellow legislators who are paid to speak critically of any administration. This is the same Congress that just had aired outraged criticism about former Special Counsel Jack Smith collecting data to confirm that members of Congress had been taking phone calls from Trump during the Jan. 6 insurrection attempt.Our politics specimen jar is in full undress that Trump thinks he can point to critics and have criminal charges appear evidence-free and immediately – with very real consequences for jail time for having an opinion.The Mark Kelly Court CaseIn the related Washington case, federal Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, blocked the Pentagon from moving to punish Mark Kelly over the video."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 in his opinion.

Related Coverage

More Headlines From February 15, 2026

arallaxNews.io
The real story isn't that the grand jury rejected Trump's case
Alternet.org

The real story isn't that the grand jury rejected Trump's case

Left

After citizen rejection of a threatened federal prosecution, what all sides seem to accept is that the very attempt to bring criminal charges against six members of Congress for reminding the military and intelligence officers to question orders they believe illegal has been extraordinary.The prosecution effort led by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro after spurring from Donald Trump directly abridges free speech, ignores the responsibility of members of Congress to speak out, and the most obvious – that the actions by the six repeatedly what already is in the law and in military training codes. It is, as most informed critics say, more a reflection of a dictatorial regime than any understandable legal case.What they do not agree on is whether the decision by a grand jury last week to reject any charges – as well as a separate judicial order halting Pentagon hounding of Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz. – should end the matter. From all reports, Justice, which is silent on the matter, is seeking a new venue to try filing charges before a new grand jury.Obviously, those inside the insular Donald Trump circle disagree basically with the rest of the world about whether there even is a problem here, never mind criminal charges. Trump himself had called for charges of sedition that could involve hanging for members of Congress to speak their mind in a video.The basic tenet – that active-duty military and intelligence agents not only can, but are obliged by the law, their behavioral code and their oaths – to refuse orders they think are illegal is not at legal issue. What is at issue is that Trump does not like what these six say or the implication that Trump is issuing orders that could be considered "illegal."But there is a lot still to sort about the why and how of the case and the dangers it represents for a Trump presidency now fully devoted to selectively prosecuting anyone who speaks or acts in opposition, in or out of office. We have the array of cases against former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, an investigation of Fed Board Chair Jerome Powell, and more in cases that refuse to end.The Grand Jury Said 'No'Of course, the grand jurors did not appear publicly to explain the decision. What we know, from sources to news organizations, is that not one voted for indictment on a proposed felony crime that makes it illegal to "interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States," not the more serious sedition.Not only is vocal Trump loyalist Pirro a political appointee, but the two prosecutors presenting the charges also were political appointees — Steven Vandervelden, a former colleague of Pirro in the district attorney's office in New York, and Carlton Davis, a former staffer for House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer, R-Ky. When it came time to vote, none of the grand jurors agreed there was sufficient probable cause to charge any of the lawmakers with a crime. The point is that professional prosecution staff had distanced themselves from the case.Unusual as it is for the Justice Department to be blanked – again – by a citizen grand jury that only hears the prosecution side of a case, that rejection should end it. Apparently not so in this case, since we are told that Justice is shopping for another shot at indictment of the six.The six include Senators Kelly, former Navy captain, aviator and astronaut, and Elise Slotkin, D-Mich., intelligence officer, Representatives Jason Crow, former Army ranger from Colorado, Maggie Goodlander, Navy veteran from New Hampshire, Chrissy Houlahan, former Air Force officer, and Chris Deluzio, former Navy officer, both from Pennsylvania.In Congress, many public and more private comments to journalists and one another, reflect anger and astonishment at Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi for greenlighting criminal charges against fellow legislators who are paid to speak critically of any administration. This is the same Congress that just had aired outraged criticism about former Special Counsel Jack Smith collecting data to confirm that members of Congress had been taking phone calls from Trump during the Jan. 6 insurrection attempt.Our politics specimen jar is in full undress that Trump thinks he can point to critics and have criminal charges appear evidence-free and immediately – with very real consequences for jail time for having an opinion.The Mark Kelly Court CaseIn the related Washington case, federal Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, blocked the Pentagon from moving to punish Mark Kelly over the video."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 in his opinion.

Read Full Story at Source