It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Federal prosecutors in Washington sought and failed on Tuesday to secure an indictment against six Democratic lawmakers who posted a video this fall that enraged President Trump by reminding active-duty members of the military and intelligence community that they were obligated to refuse illegal orders, four people familiar with the matter said.
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 of the six members of Congress, all of whom had served in the military or the nation’s spy agencies. But it was even more remarkable that a group of ordinary citizens sitting on the grand jury in Federal District Court in Washington rejected the effort, sending a signal that they did not believe that the lawmakers had committed any crimes.
It had been exceedingly rare for grand jurors to rebuff requests by prosecutors seeking indictments, although it has happened with increased frequency to the Justice Department under Mr. Trump, as his appointees push ahead with questionable cases.
The move to charge the lawmakers — among them, Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona and Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan — was, by any measure, an extraordinary attempt by prosecutors to politicize the criminal justice system even for a Justice Department that has repeatedly shattered norms of independence from the White House and followed Mr. Trump’s directives to prosecute his adversaries. Prosecutors presenting the case sought to persuade the grand jurors that the lawmakers had violated a statute that forbids interfering with the loyalty, morale or discipline of the U.S. armed forces, according to one of the people familiar with the matter.
They sought to bring charges against Mr. Kelly, Ms. Slotkin and their four colleagues in the House: Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger; Maggie Goodlander, a former Navy reservist; Chrissy Houlahan, a former Air Force officer; and Chris Deluzio, a Navy veteran.
Over and over, the Justice Department under Mr. Trump has brought questionable criminal cases against foes of the president — among them, James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, and Letitia James, the New York attorney general. But even though many of these cases have been weak, the department has apparently determined that it might be better to fail in court rather than push back against Mr. Trump’s well-known desire for revenge. Prosecutors, for instance, failed twice to re-indict Ms. James after a federal judge tossed out her original charges, ruling that the U.S. attorney handpicked by Mr. Trump to prosecute the case had been illegally appointed to her job. The case against Mr. Comey was dismissed for the same reason.
The online video, which was organized by Ms. Slotkin, a former C.I.A. analyst who served multiple tours in Iraq, did not mention any specific order or military scenario. But it was released as Mr. Trump was authorizing strikes against suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and considered deploying active-duty military troops to American cities to quell protests.The lawmakers took turns reading a statement in which they cautioned that the “threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.” “Our laws are clear,” said Mr. Kelly, a Navy veteran and former astronaut: “You can refuse illegal orders.”
Almost immediately, the video drew the ire of Mr. Trump, who demanded that the lawmakers be punished and even suggested that they should be executed. “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” Mr. Trump wrote on his social media site. He shared another person’s post that said, “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”
Days later, the six lawmakers disclosed that the F.B.I. had contacted the House and Senate sergeants-at-arms requesting interviews with them, indicating that a criminal investigation was underway. “President Trump is using the F.B.I. as a tool to intimidate and harass members of Congress,” the four House members who took part in the video said in a joint statement. “No amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution.”
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
Comments
The following passage is from HCR's latest newsletter.
"Although the bar for an indictment is so low that grand juries almost always return one,
the Trump administration’s attempts to harass those he perceives as opponents
have been so outrageous that grand juries have repeatedly refused to go along.
The New York Times called today’s refusal 'a remarkable rebuke.'"
Edit/Add: Good NYT article. Thanks for sharing, Old_Joe.
"It’s extremely rare for grand juries to refuse to issue an indictment requested by federal prosecutors
because prosecutors exert so much control over them."
"Grand juries aren’t like juries in regular trials.
They meet in secret — 16 to 23 citizens summoned from the community.
No judge is present. No lawyers who represent defendants are present. No witnesses appear.
Prosecutors are in total command — presenting evidence of a crime and asking grand juries to indict.
And the evidentiary standard is not whether a crime occurred 'beyond a reasonable doubt,'
but merely whether there is 'probable cause' of a federal crime."
"It’s not surprising, then, that federal grand juries have issued indictments in over 99 percent of cases
prosecutors bring to them. (For example, in 2010, of 162,000 federal cases federal prosecutors
presented to grand juries seeking an indictment, only 11 resulted in grand juries deciding not to indict.)
As Judge Sol Wachtler, the former New York jurist, famously said, prosecutors are
in such complete control of grand juries that they could get them to indict a ham sandwich."