DC Grand Jury Refuses to Indict Over ‘Illegal Orders’ Video
An absurd matter has come to its rightful conclusion.
AP (“Grand jury refuses to indict Democratic lawmakers in connection with illegal military orders video“):
A grand jury in Washington refused Tuesday to indict Democratic lawmakers in connection with a video in which they urged U.S. military members to resist “illegal orders,” according to a person familiar with the matter.
The Justice Department opened an investigation into the video featuring Democratic Sens. Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin and four other Democratic lawmakers urging U.S. service members to follow established military protocols and reject orders they believe to be unlawful. All the lawmakers previously served in the military or at intelligence agencies.
Grand jurors in Washington declined to sign off on charges in the latest of a series of rebukes of prosecutors by citizens in the nation’s capital, according to the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the matter. It wasn’t immediately clear whether prosecutors had sought indictments against all six lawmakers or what charge or charges prosecutors attempted to bring.
Grand jury rejections are extraordinarily unusual, but have happened repeatedly in recent months in Washington as citizens who have heard the government’s evidence have come away underwhelmed in a number of cases. Prosecutors could try again to secure an indictment.
Spokespeople for the U.S. attorney’s office and the Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.
The FBI in November began contacting the lawmakers to schedule interviews, outreach that came against the backdrop of broader Justice Department efforts to punish political opponents of the president. President Donald Trump and his aides labeled the lawmakers’ video as “seditious” — and Trump said on his social media account that the offense was “punishable by death.”
WaPo (“D.C. grand jury declines to indict six Democratic lawmakers“):
A federal grand jury in D.C. refused the Justice Department’s attempts to indict six Democratic lawmakers over their comments to military service members — the latest rebuke of the Trump administration’s push to prosecute the president’s foes, according to two people familiar with the matter.
[…]
It is exceedingly rare for grand juries to reject indictments, in part because prosecutors only need to convince a majority of grand jurors that there is a probable cause that a crime was committed — a relatively low threshold. But the Justice Department’s campaign to target President Donald Trump’s perceived adversaries has repeatedly been rebuffed by grand juries and judges, including in its efforts to prosecute former FBI director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James (D).
[…]
The prosecutors had attempted to charge the lawmakers with a felony 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,” according to the two people familiar with the grand jury’s decision. They both spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss secretive grand jury matters.
[…]
Prosecutors could try again to present the cases to grand jurors. But even if they secure indictments, the cases could face obstacles in court. A federal judge expressed concerns at an unrelated hearing last week that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth could be violating Kelly’s First Amendment rights by imposing a formal censure over the social media comments and opening military demotion proceedings that could cut Kelly’s retirement benefits.
“This is an outrageous abuse of power by Donald Trump and his lackies,” Kelly said in a statement. “It wasn’t enough for Pete Hegseth to censure me and threaten to demote me, now it appears they tried to have me charged with a crime — all because of something I said that they didn’t like. That’s not the way things work in America.”
NYT (“Grand Jury Rebuffs Justice Dept. Attempt to Indict 6 Democrats in Congress“):
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 forcefully rejected Mr. Trump’s bid to label their expression of dissent as a criminal act warranting prosecution.
[…]
On Tuesday, 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.
[…]
On Tuesday, 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.
[…]
The case against the lawmakers was prompted by an online video organized by Ms. Slotkin, a former C.I.A. analyst who served multiple tours in Iraq. It 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.”
I have so many thoughts on this.
First and foremost, while I’m generally not a fan of jury nullification, this is the reason we have grand juries. Citizens should not have to bear the incredible cost and stress of a criminal trial on frivolous charges.
As all of the reports note, the grand jury’s actions here are remarkable. Former judge Sol Wachtler famously declared that district attorneys could get grand juries to “indict a ham sandwich.” (Tom Wolfe popularized that saying in The Bonfire of the Vanities.) The threshold for indictment is low, and the deck is further stacked in favor of the prosecution because they choose which cases to present.
The idea that Members of Congress, who have substantial Constitutional duties with regard to the military, could be criminally prosecuted for making vague public statements about the right of service members to disobey unlawful orders is risible.
Beyond that, I don’t understand how the law in question,
§2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:(1) 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 or naval forces of the United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States-
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
isn’t blatantly unconstitutional. While I’m aware of the ruling in Schenk v. United States, that case hinged on the fact that it was wartime. Even so, Brandenburg v. Ohio and other cases have significantly narrowed the ways in which governments and government officials can criminalize speech they deem dangerous.
As to the video itself, which I apparently never got around to blogging on, I found it foolish and unhelpful. At best, a generic statement telling members of the armed forces to disobey unlawful orders is confusing. At worst, this grandstanding could put those who follow suit in serious legal jeopardy.
If Kelly and company thought a specific set of orders—past or hypothetical—was illegal, they should have said so plainly. And called for hearings to bring the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and other responsible figures before Congress to testify on the matter.
As I’ve noted in many posts over the years, “It’s Not the Military’s Job to Oppose Trump.” Granting that all of the institutional and structural barriers that we’ve discussed ad nauseam here make it very difficult, that’s the job of Congress, the courts, and even senior appointed officials in policymaking roles.
Beyond that, despite the mythology of the Nuremberg Trials, “Just Following Orders” is in fact a legal defense—and, indeed, the expectation to which members of the armed forces will be held—in all but the most egregious of circumstances. Indeed, even though “The Legality of the Maduro Raid” was extremely dubious, the fact that it was signed off on by the requisite officials who certify the legality of executive branch actions meant that those who carried it out are not only protected from prosecution but could have been prosecuted for refusing to carry out their orders.
So, to summarize: the video was unhelpful grandstanding, but Members of Congress—and American citizens, period—have the right to say unhelpful things that Presidents and their cabinets dislike. On that front, I agree with Kelly 100%.
You could not be more wrong. The power of the statement they made is demonstrated by the panicky response of the Trump regime. I guarantee you that Trump’s people contemplated using the military to enforce its will on the American people. I guarantee you they were ready for a hundred Kent States, a thousand Renee Goods and Alex Prettis. And I guarantee you they have back-burnered these fantasies. For now.
You still don’t understand who these people are, James. In your employment you rub shoulders with people who seem normal and civil and professional, but don’t be fooled into believing that they all share your moral rectitude. Under the right circumstances, with orders ringing in their ears, they’ll commit any crime. If you were a Jew you would understand that.
People have to speak out and speak up and keep repeating the truth in the face of government oppression. These public servants were doing what they are meant to do: defending the Constitution and the American way of life.
You keep saying this, but it is very much untrue. All combatants have a positive duty to disobey manifestly unlawful orders.
This is why all members of the armed services receive at least some training in international humanitarian law, in accordance with their rank and responsibilities.
Their responsibility extends beyond blindly accepting what a government lawyer says, as is rather obviously evidenced by the very fact that they receive some degree of independent training.
Which means that besides being factually wrong, your position is also logically incoherent.
The Taco so-called administration keeps failing to accept courts and juries deal in laws and facts, not on wild allegations and grievance.
@Michael Reynolds: My problem isn’t with Congress reminding people of their oath, but in the non-specific way in which they did it here. Surely that had some specific set of illegalities in mind? This was grandstanding for their supporters, not a direction to the armed forces.
@drj: Manifestly unlawful is indeed the standard, as noted in several linked pieces. But which orders are they claiming met that standard?
The grand jury rejection is just in time for Pam Bondi’s congressional appearance. What are the odds it becomes a topic of conversation. Among many others.
Reminder that Jeanine Pirro couldn’t get a grand jury to indict a guy who threw the ham sandwich.
@James Joyner:
Reminding people they took an oath, and what that oath says, is specific.
I’m sure they did, but it’s also possible that they didn’t think it made sense to limit it to just what was going on right at that moment. The administration has been fairly creative in what it considers appropriate use of force by the military.
What you have called “grandstanding” is what others would call “the absolute bare minimum that Congress could be doing to claw back its Constitutional authority as a co-equal branch of government.” Tomato, tomahtoe, I suppose.
@James Joyner:
For instance, the bombing of (alleged) drug boats as well as the shipwrecked survivors were/are manifestly illegal. But lawyers nonetheless approved these strikes (at least that’s what the government claims).