Chris Hayes reporting that Grand Jury has refused to indict Mark Kelly and the

[allegorical oracle]

other folks who advised military members that they can refuse legal orders.

[vapor2]

1. Maybe now the monster will stop targeting his enemies?

[Jack Valentino]

14. It's just legal harassment! It usually costs money to defend against most charges---

even when they are completely baseless, such as this---

but Trump is using the American people's tax money, so it costs HIM nothing!

[SergeStorms]

39. Never.

Fear and retribution are two cornerstones of TrumpCo.

To stop now would lead to a total collapse of his "strategy."

[senseandsensibility]

2. Not really a surprise

but a relief just the same. Also, I think you meant "illegal" orders.

[malaise]

3. Huge - KABOOM,

What a slap in the face for these shameless fascists.

Illegal orders

[pwb]

4. Illegal orders you mean.

They never said don't follow lawful orders.

[UTUSN]

23. This

[johnnyfins]

5. They are not going to stop.

It's war y'all. Wake up.

[newdeal2]

11. Correct they will keep trying

Trump demands his enemies be persecuted. Either get with the program or be shoved aside.

[MustLoveBeagles]

6. That's a relief

[LetMyPeopleVote]

7. Trump administration fails to secure indictment in connection with Democrats involved in 'illegal orders' video

President Donald Trump had accused six Democratic lawmakers of "seditious behavior" after they urged members of the military and intelligence communities to refuse unlawful orders.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/doj-fails-secure-indictment-democrats-involved-illegal-orders-video-rcna258385

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration tried and failed on Tuesday to secure an indictment in connection with a video featuring six Democratic lawmakers urging members of the military and intelligence communities not to comply with unlawful orders, three sources familiar with the matter told NBC News.

It was not clear how many of the lawmakers the Trump administration attempted to indict, or if the failed attempt will be addressed in a future court hearing.

The indictment pursued by the office of U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro is the latest example of the Justice Department targeting the president’s perceived political opponents. The government attorneys assigned to the case are political appointees, not career Justice Department prosecutors, according to a source familiar with the investigation.....

In addition to the First Amendment issues, the “speech or debate" clause of the Constitution gives lawmakers on Capitol Hill immunity from prosecution for acts taken within the legislative sphere, a fundamental check on the constitutional separation of powers.

Several Democrats involved in the video recently said they would not cooperate with the Justice Department's probe into the video.

Under longstanding Justice Department policy, the Public Integrity Section would normally have to sign off on every step of an investigation into a sitting member of Congress, especially a case with free speech and speech and debate considerations. But the Trump administration has dismantled the Public Integrity Section, eliminating checks meant to prevent the Justice Department's powers from being abused for political purposes.

[brakester]

37. Pirro:

"Box of Whine"

[Ocelot II]

8. Ham sandwiches apparently have more criminal tendencies

than Trump's targets, since his DoJ hasn't been able to get grand juries to indict.

[Wiz Imp]

9. Well Duh! What "crime" were they supposed to have committed according to the DOJ?

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. According to the NYT, "interfering with the loyalty, morale or discipline of the U.S. armed forces"

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.
...
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.
...
Even though many of these cases have been weak, the department has apparently determined that it may be better to fail in court rather than push back against Mr. Trump’s well-known desire for revenge.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/10/us/politics/trump-democrats-illegal-orders-pirro.html

Good on the grand jury members. They're more fit to run the country than the mad rapist squatting above a department of lickspittles who are too cowardly to explain the constitution to his face.

[mysteryowl]

10. That is great news!

[WmChris]

12. That's illegal orders not legal orders

It's good that co.mon sense prevailed.

[UTUSN]

24. This

[mdbl]

13. So Pirro decided to go ahead and make herself look like a drunk fool again

Someone make her resign. She sucks. She also sucked on fux noooze.

[The Roux Comes First]

26. She Was Born to the Role

But I wonder what a two-year old drunk fool looks like.

She's had lots of practice by now!

[mdbl]

32. For a small period of time, it looked like she might try to rehab

Donald Dump stopped all that.

[Skittles]

15. the J6 king himself, whining about "seditious behavior"

[canetoad]

16. Good on them

They did the right thing.

[LudwigPastorius]

17. Old "Drinky" Jeanine's batting average keeps dropping.

This may have dropped her below the US Attorney's Mendoza line.

[Rhiannon12866]

18. Here's the video of Chris Hayes' announcement:

BREAKING: Trump DOJ fails to indict Dem lawmakers on sedition charges - All In - MS NOW
https://www.democraticunderground.com/132166312

[BidenRocks]

19. Now sue them for 20 Billion dollars!

Defamation
They were called traitors!

[calimary]

20. YES!!!!!!

[mahina]

21. Hooray!

At least we canʻt be indicted for not breaking the law.

Hooray all the same however crazy it is.

[LilElf70]

22. OMG, we won ONE

And we did it legally.

This is excellent news.

[Tasmanian Devil]

25. Can the grand jury transcripts be made public?

I'd love to see Congress investigate just what crimes were alleged to have taken place.

Reminding the military to not obey illegal orders can never be considered a crime. Sheesh.

[Dave Bowman]

27. Mark Kelly is worth a thousand tRumps.

[Mz Pip]

28. Bondi will try again

She’s still going after Comey and James.

Hegseth will put the full force of the Pentagon to secure a punishment for Kelly.

This is just a minor setback to the deranged MAGA crowd.

[Smackdown2019]

29. Dont celebrate yet

Grand Juries can keep saying No, just take one Jury to say yes... Trump can keep shopping around...

It doesn't look good, but its a trump world we are in, so nothing surprises me nowadays....

For now, just another hurdle for trump to get a trial on Kelly....

All is Kelly needs to do, is Run for President... then that old saying we use to hear so often.... its an election year....

Run Kelly Run!!!

[DFW]

31. At least he should be in a good mood next week............ n/t

[LetMyPeopleVote]

33. Grand Jury Rebuffs Justice Dept. Attempt to Indict 6 Democrats in Congress (NYT Gift Subscription)

The rejection was a remarkable rebuke, suggesting that ordinary citizens did not believe that the lawmakers had committed any crimes.

Link to tweet

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/10/us/politics/trump-democrats-illegal-orders-pirro.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LVA.6CKn.AKtD2kERP9jk&smid=nytcore-ios-share

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.

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 Trump appointees 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......

“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.”

Mr. Kelly is also facing a separate investigation by the Pentagon into what military officials described as “serious allegations of misconduct.”

[Botany]

34. Good

One more losing run in court for Trump &
Bondi

[Initech]

35. Excellent! Fuck you Pete Hegseth!

Don’t worry, you can share a cell with Patel and RFK Jr!

[MineralMan]

36. Refuse ILLEGAL Orders, not Legal

It's a critical point. Please be careful.

[ShazzieB]

38. Excellent!

Of course they'll keep trying, as some have observed, but they'll just keep losing. And we'll just keep pointing and laughing until they're forced to give up.

[Mysterian]

40. Fix your post

They said military members could refuse ILLEGAL orders.

[KPN]

41. People over power. And ultimately, we the people

will overpower them completely.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

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

“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.”

[patphil]

43. I expected this, given the fact that the Uniform Code of Military Justice states this quite clearly.

Now if someone was able to prosecute Pete Hegseth for issuing illegal orders to destroy all those boats, we'd see the UCMJ in action.
Unfortunately, Trump will probably pardon him as he nears the end of his 2nd term.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

44. 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.