MaddowBlog-Dems enraged after Trump's DOJ targeted veterans with charges of seditious conspiracy

[LetMyPeopleVote]

“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]

1. 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.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

2. 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.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. MaddowBlog-Democrats want to turn the tables on Pirro following failed indictment effort

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described this week’s circumstances as “a constitutional crisis.” There’s every reason to believe he was right.

The DOJ tried to charge sitting members of Congress, who’d done nothing, with felonies that would’ve sent them to prison for decades.

Despite the gambit's failure, Schumer characterized the effort itself as “a constitutional crisis.” I don’t think that’s hyperbolic. www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...

— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-02-12T16:53:14.847Z

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/democrats-want-to-turn-the-tables-on-pirro-following-failed-indictment-effort

This marked the latest in a series of embarrassments for Pirro and Donald Trump’s unraveling Justice Department, but the “no bill” failure, overseen by prosecutors with unfortunate backgrounds, did not close the book on the fiasco.

On the contrary, some of the targets of this ridiculous gambit appear eager to turn the tables on those who went after them. Politico reported:

Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) on Wednesday demanded U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro preserve all evidence related to her unsuccessful effort to bring charges against him and five other Democratic lawmakers. […]

In a letter sent Wednesday to Pirro’s office, Abbe Lowell, Crow’s attorney, called the effort to indict Crow and the other Democrats involved in the video ‘a breathtaking and unprecedented level of prosecutorial overreach and misuse of power.’

A week earlier, after Sen. Elissa Slotkin told the Justice Department that she wouldn’t cooperate with its baseless investigation, the Michigan Democrat’s lawyers also requested that Pirro preserve all documents related to the matter for “anticipated litigation.”

Time will tell what, if anything, comes of this, but it’s also worth pausing to appreciate the larger context. After the grand jury dismissed the case as nonsensical, it was easy to mock Pirro and her assigned prosecutors over their humiliating failure, but let’s not miss the forest for the trees: Federal prosecutors wanted to bring serious felony charges against sitting members of Congress who’d done nothing wrong. If successful, the charges would have sent lawmakers to prison for many years.

That’s more than just bonkers. It’s also a dangerous step down an authoritarian path.

.....“I say to my Republican colleagues, if the executive branch can merely attempt to prosecute members of the legislative branch for simply exercising free speech, that is not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem, it is a constitutional crisis,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. Trump prosecutors were asked which law Democrats broke - and they couldn't name even one

Normally an indictment has to list the statutes on which the charges are based

President Donald Trump's alleged vengeance campaign against his political enemies has thus far flopped as his at times under-qualified loyalists fail to secure indictments, and new reports are emerging about the latest fiasco.

— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2026-02-18T20:01:18.853Z

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-prosecution-democratic-lawmakers

President Donald Trump's alleged vengeance campaign against his political enemies has thus far flopped as his at times under-qualified loyalists fail to secure indictments, and new reports are emerging about the latest fiasco.

Federal prosecutors failed to persuade a single grand jury member that there was probable cause to indict six Democratic lawmakers who produced a video reminding military service members they were duty-bound to disobey unlawful orders, and The New Republic's Greg Sargent reported that even prosecutors weren't sure what law they might have broken.

"Here’s what happened: After the FBI communicated with the Democratic lawmakers, prosecutors in Pirro’s office reached out to them to follow up," Sargent wrote. "Slotkin’s attorney, Preet Bharara, directly asked prosecutors what statute the Democrats had allegedly violated to prompt the criminal inquiry, according to sources familiar with these discussions. The prosecutors could not name any statute, the sources told me."

“'What is the theory of criminal liability?' is the question that was posed to the prosecutors, one source said, adding that 'no answer was forthcoming.'"

Prosecutors went forward in their attempt to indict the members of Congress without naming any violated statute, and Sargent said that it still hasn't been definitively confirmed what statue they used in their ultimately doomed grand jury hearing.

"The failure to name a relevant statute when directly asked to do so by the lawyers for the accused suggests prosecutors didn’t think a criminal prosecution was warranted or doubted there was probable cause to think the Democrats had committed a crime," Sargent wrote. "In fact, one source familiar with these discussions tells me the prosecutors’ general tone in them suggested they were making the sort of inquiry that normally comes at the very outset of the investigative process."

One of the sources said that prosecutors – neither of whom had much prior experience – seemed to be at the "very preliminary" stage in their investigation when they presented their evidence to a grand jury, and Sargent said that's a worrisome sign.

"For the DOJ to seek an indictment so soon after conversations like those suggests something or other prompted the rush to indict, perhaps a word from on high that — let’s go way out on a limb here — had little to do with facts and law," he wrote. "Legal experts tell me it’s odd for prosecutors to fail to state any theory of criminal liability and then attempt an indictment anyway so quickly."