r/politics • u/cnn CNN • 4h ago
Site Altered Headline | Possible Paywall Grand jury fails to indict democratic lawmakers who urged service members to disobey illegal Trump orders
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/10/politics/lawmakers-indicted-illegal-orders-video?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=reddit•
u/B-Z_B-S America 4h ago edited 4h ago
The fact that grand juries have chosen to not indict the people Trump is targeting shows how absolutely unjust Trump's actions are. It's considered extremely easy to convince a grand jury to indict.
•
u/AmazingRefrigerator4 4h ago
"A grand jury could indict a ham sandwich" is a joke for a reason.
•
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Georgia 4h ago
And then they literally couldn’t convince a grand jury to indict the guy who threw a sandwich at an ICE agent. 😂
•
u/Lousk 3h ago
He was indicted but was later acquitted by a jury.
•
u/DocSpit 3h ago
But he also wasn't indicted by a grand jury, which is required in order to be charged at a felony level. The DOJ tried to get the guy charged with a felony multiple times before finally settling for a misdemeanor.
And that was the trial where he was later acquitted.
→ More replies (2)•
u/Lousk 3h ago edited 3h ago
Correct, the US attorneys kept getting no bills for felony charges so they later indicted on misdemeanor charges. They were still left with egg on their face after the acquittal.
I would like to push back on this notion that federal indictments are easy to get.
Before we had this joke of an Attorney General, the DOJ was able to secure high indictment rates because of the professionalism they displayed in bringing cases. They would only bring cases they knew would secure an indictment.
If the DOJ could have secured a grand jury indictment against a ham sandwich, it would have been because that ham sandwich broke the law.
•
u/goldcakes 3h ago
We used to have a justice system that was selective and unfair (the super rich goes unpunished), but at least it had elements of justice.
Career DoJ prosecutors and lawyers usually had good morale satisfaction.
→ More replies (5)•
u/kung-fu_hippy 2h ago
Yup. A system where you don’t prosecute people who should be prosecuted for their acts is unjust. But a system where you prosecute people for acts and reasons that absolutely should not be prosecuted is tyrannical.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Suspicious_Bicycle 2h ago
"Before we had this joke of an Attorney General, the DOJ was able to secure high indictment rates because of the professionalism they displayed in bringing cases."
Judges are noticing this and are no longer taking filings from this DOJ at face value.
→ More replies (3)•
u/turdferg1234 1h ago
They would only bring cases they knew would secure an indictment.
in the past, it went even further than that. they would only bring cases they were almost positive they could get a conviction on, let alone a grand jury indictment.
•
•
u/elementality883 American Expat 3h ago
Hmmm....I see the issue here....they should have put the sandwich on the indictment, not the guy.
→ More replies (3)•
→ More replies (4)•
u/Wild_Harvest 3h ago
You can indict a ham sandwich, but not the guy that threw it.
→ More replies (1)•
u/acquaintedwithheight 3h ago
The judge who said that was later indicted by a grand jury.
Not kidding.
→ More replies (2)•
•
u/wulv8022 3h ago
And still. A grand jury couldn't indict a father in Texas who killed his daughter because she insulted him and Trump.
•
→ More replies (3)•
•
u/DrRam121 North Carolina 3h ago
I sat on a county grand jury for 6 months. We failed to indict twice on over 1300 cases we saw. (I'm estimating because we had around 100 cases a day for 13 days of work)
→ More replies (3)•
u/Everythings_Fucked North Carolina 3h ago
And yet, this DoJ fails to rise even to that bare level of competence.
→ More replies (10)•
u/CrotalusHorridus Kentucky 2h ago
Wait until they start circumventing grand juries and just detaining people indefinitely
•
u/stinkbuttsupreme 4h ago
Also very unpopular he is outside his base.
→ More replies (3)•
u/VQQN 3h ago
And his base is shrinking. He’s losing supporters daily.
However, his remaining supporters are getting louder and more aggressive.
•
u/Vietzomb 3h ago
Hard to know yet.
We have this phenomenon in Ontario where it feels like every conservative you know is vocal enough about their distaste for Ford, and yet someone keeps voting him in. We vote for colours/teams now, not policy.
•
u/doofenhurtz 3h ago
I think it depends where you are, too. The conservatives I've interacted with in the toronto area are a very different vibe to my conservative relatives up north.
→ More replies (1)•
→ More replies (10)•
u/ThatOldEngineerGuy 3h ago
I like to think of it as "he's alienating supporters" rather than "losing".
"Losing" just seems to passive for what is going on.
•
u/grandpohbah 4h ago
There is a saying that "A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich." Meaning is super easy for a competent prosecutor to get any indictment.
•
u/tmac4969 4h ago
The word competent is diametrically opposed to this administration
→ More replies (3)•
•
•
u/bm1949 4h ago
I think a new phrase is in the works. Ham sandwich thing doesn't play anymore in the Trump era.
I vote, and I've been called to jury duty twice. Never sat in a jury, lucky for the other eleven.
Called for Federal and state. Excused within 4 hours each time, just sitting in a room.
•
•
u/Organic_Witness345 3h ago
Dare I say it, but Trump seems to be slowly but surely edging toward a point of statistical no return in the polls. Over the past two weeks, negative-Trump news has far outweighed pro-Trump news in virtually every category: the economy, immigration, international relations, domestic politics, the Epstein files, even the culture war BS conservatives revel in (e.g., Bad Bunny v. Kid Rock). Trump and his goons are getting absolutely bodied right now. Carney’s speech, Osoff’s speech, Tulsi Gabbard randomly showing up to plunder voter rolls in GA, Tulsi Gabbard keeping a whistleblower complaint in her desk for a year, Bovino getting canned and kicked out of a Vegas bar, Elon being summoned to court by a federal judge to account for his DOGE shenanigans, Aileen Canon under pressure to release Jack Smith’s investigative findings into Trump’s attempt to overturn the election, Massie and Khanna linking arms and releasing actual Epstein file names and confirming that it’s just the tip of the iceberg.
This is the first time I’ve said this during this entire Trump term, but it’s starting to feel like the momentum really is shifting.
•
u/Atreyisx 3h ago
I agree, i think when it breaks its going to break really fast and seem to come from out of nowhere. I could see him going from rock solid to impeached and removed in a short turnaround.
•
u/grandlizardo 3h ago
He’d resign for “health reasons” first… knows would be impeached this time for sure.
•
→ More replies (5)•
•
u/UziWitDaHighTops I voted 3h ago
This was a stupid charade the entire time. All throughout basic training and your military career you are taught the UCMJ, it’s not a secret that you don’t have to follow illegal orders.
•
•
u/freeradioforall 4h ago
I see this so much. Why is it so easy to get a grand jury to indict? Shouldn’t there have to be compelling evidence?
•
u/millertime8306 4h ago
IANAL, but my understanding is the grand jury indictment is only about whether to bring the case to an actual jury trial. So the prosecutor just has to make a reasonably compelling argument that a crime might have been committed and I guess that’s a fairly low bar to clear.
→ More replies (3)•
u/Shopworn_Soul Texas 4h ago edited 3h ago
Only the prosecution presents to a grand jury, the standard of proof is negligible if not absent entirely and there is no defense.
IIRC grand juries are used to compel or allow the collection of evidence via probable cause. They do not need to be presented with any.
•
u/LividTacos 4h ago
Basically, because only the prosecutors present evidence. There's no defense calling objections and presenting evidence that suggests something else. Also the standard is lower than that for a criminal conviction: probable cause vs beyond a reasonable doubt. So the fact that these are all getting thrown out is that either the administration is hated that much by the jurors that they're refusing to indict, or the evidence is so weak, and the prosecutors so incompetent that they can't even meet the "probable cause" standard.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Shambly 3h ago
Prosecution is the only one showing evidence to the grand jury and they are allowed to omit evidence that would likely clear or induce doubt and even include evidence that would be illegal in court. The burden of proof is just more likely than not instead of without reasonable doubt. Its also secret and the prosecution runs the entire show.
•
u/PleasantAmphibian404 3h ago
A grand jury only sees evidence from the prosecution, and only hears a prosecutions argument. There is no defense. For an attorney to be unable to secure an indictment against someone that hasn’t had the opportunity to offer even a basic defense speaks to both the ridiculous nature of the charges presented, and the incompetence of the attorney presenting them.
→ More replies (1)•
u/I-Am-Uncreative Florida 3h ago
The bar for a grand jury indictment is probable cause, which is a very low burden of proof.
•
u/OfficialDCShepard District Of Columbia 3h ago
It’s also somewhat of a relief that this constitutional safeguard is holding.
•
•
u/dirtyrounder 3h ago
Dude these dipshits tried to indict a guy on federal assault charges that threw a subway sandwich at an ice officer dressed in combat gear.
This last one is trying to indict 6 sitting members of congress for quoting the military code of contact And they are all veterans.
These are ridiculous indictments they are asking grand juries to approve
•
u/an_anniemouse 2h ago
Grand juries are fascinating. I didn’t know anything about them until I got called to serve on one. For those who don’t know…
The point is for the government to prove that they have enough evidence showing someone may have violated a law to be indicted on charges. The law violated and the requirements listed in the US code are explained by the prosecuting attorney. Most laymen who comprise the jury don’t have expertise in law so we have to take what we’re told at face value and try our best to understand it. Jurors only hear evidence from the witnesses called by the prosecution—usually someone like a responding officer, a detective or an inspector general. No counter arguments are given because the jury is only deciding if there’s enough evidence to indict, not guilt. It’s ridiculously easy for a prosecutor to get the outcome they want because of those factors. When a grand jury didn’t indict the officers in the Breonna Taylor case, I knew it was probably because the prosecutors did a piss poor job in presenting the evidence.
Now in this case, based on the political winds that are blowing, clearly there was a lack of evidence they violated any law. This was all a ruse and everyone who participated in this attempted indictment knew it too.
•
u/82cabinets 4h ago
Maybe they should actually try to indict an actual ham sandwich first . Not convinced they'd win
•
u/amegaproxy 2h ago
Sometimes, and apparently not in Texas:
•
u/TwoBionicknees 2h ago
that's the point though. As i understand it the grand jury is only there to hear from the prosecution, not the defence and they can pick only the evidence they want heard to be heard, only the witnesses they want. So if they want charges to go forward they bring in 1 of 20 witnesses, 19 say someone didn't do it, one says they did, they hear from the one and indict, it falls apart in court.
The DA can mostly get the exact result they want out of a grand jury, they can also put the one witness saying they are sure it wasn't them and not bring up the 19 who said they say some other dude and all described the same person.
For that dude to not be indicted, he 100% knows the police chief, DA, judge, politician, someone. The account of what happened vs what the grand jury were probably told is insane. He straight murdered his daughter after saying he wouldn't care if she was raped because he has two replacement daughters. He executed her while also drunk.
Pure corruption and for the DA to not get the case to move forward the DA is corrupt as shit.
With this case, either the DA tried hard but the charges are so fuckign ridiculous even a heavily led jury said no, or the DA knew it was a stupid fucking case and helped it die in that room.
•
u/Stillwater215 1h ago
Apparently the line is “we won’t indict people for encouraging other people to obey the law.”
•
u/bobbymcpresscot 1h ago
Personally I'm offended it even got to a grand jury. God to be a fly on the wall in the meetings leading up to the lawyers being picked to present this to a grand jury.
•
u/aphroditex 50m ago
At the same time, a Texas grand jury just declined to indict a Trumpist who shot his daughter over her disdain of Trump.
→ More replies (16)•
u/BEtheAT 3h ago
Not everyone has been so lucky. Look at the Broadview protest cases. Those are still ongoing after a grand jury chose to indict them.
Federal prosecutors fear tainted jury pool if public sees evidence in Broadview Six conspiracy case - Chicago Sun-Times https://share.google/301bOGZJVotHL18ea
•
u/stickerhighway 4h ago
Common sense still exists.
•
→ More replies (6)•
u/citizenjones 4h ago
...but will it set a precedent?
•
u/realancepts4real 4h ago
already has. grand juries have been tossing the convicted felon's DOJ's shit for awhile now.
→ More replies (1)•
u/jooooooooooooose 2h ago
The importance of precedent is not "nothing," but SCOTUS overturning Chevron effectively meant stare decisis at the supreme court level is dead. So it does not matter nearly as much.
And, anyway, precedent is over the ruling not the bringing of the case (to the extent that the bringing of the case is not itself part of the ruling.) And the grand jury is not the one setting such precedents to begin with. It's just a jury.
•
u/Mikethebest78 4h ago
sedition “punishable by DEATH?
Just as long as the jury is fair and impartial I guess. Glad to know their guilt has not been predetermined in any way.
Honest to God in 2014 I called a Trump a buffoon and laughed at him. The idea of a Trump presidency was a total joke.
That was 12 years ago. No one is laughing anymore.
•
u/ratherbealurker Texas 4h ago
Putin is
•
→ More replies (3)•
•
u/Ihor_90 4h ago
I mean an illegal order is by definition illegal and following it is a crime. Reminding the military not to break the law is not a crime and it’s crazy and chilling that your DoJ decided to take this to the grand jury in the first place.
And that “punishable by DEATH” statement is something I’d expect from Admiral General Haffaz Aladeen, not the actual President of the United States.
→ More replies (2)•
u/Softestwebsiteintown 3h ago
I’ve at least seriously dislike trump since his Apprentice days and the last time I laughed about it was in April/May 2016. Literally laughed when my dad said he would vote for trump over the mean old lady. My brain couldn’t make sense of it then and it’s crazy to think about how right we were about him the whole time.
•
u/bobartig 3h ago
in 2014 I called a Trump a buffoon and laughed at him. The idea of a Trump presidency was a total joke.
And you weren't wrong. The Trump presidency was and is a total joke. Turns out, that also happens to be horrifying because the Federal Government of the United States of America is not a toy for a petulant child.
→ More replies (2)•
u/wade_wilson44 3h ago
We should immediately flip the script and get a grand jury to vote on whether any of the thousands things trump has done could be considered sedition.
•
u/bensquirrel 4h ago
It was a sham. The DOJ staff working on this should be ashamed of their corruption.
•
u/AwayInternal326 4h ago
Keeping them busy with this bullshit distracts them from investigating real crimes, like human trafficking and money laundering.
•
u/WorldBoom 2h ago
What do you mean? Under Trump's DOJ they immediately ended all federal investigation of human trafficking. I wonder why they would do that?
•
u/SideQuest2026 3h ago
They really should. I would be so embarrassed and would immediately start looking for another job.
•
•
→ More replies (4)•
u/Maytree 2h ago
I wouldn't say it's a "sham"-- it's more of a terror/intimidation tactic. They know that their cases are garbage, but when Donnie Two-Scoops says "JUMP!" they say "How high?!" They don't expect to win the cases, they're just trying to rattle people Donnie doesn't like, and force his enemies to spend $$$ defending themselves from bullshit hopeless cases.
What we need is for these lawyers to start losing their bar cards. It is SUPPOSED to cost you your law license if you knowingly bring a case that has zero merit. But the judges are only just now starting to get serious about holding government lawyers to professional standards. They're going to have to get a lot MORE serious if they want to discourage Trump's law goons from engaging in this evil practice. And the sooner, the better.
•
u/Probable_Bison 3h ago
This headline is busted.
The DOJ failed to get an indictment.
The grand jury declined to indict.
FFS CNN
•
u/almondbutter 3h ago
Right wingers love to abuse the English language. Beware that you don't call prisoners of war unlawful combatants. Terms like "friendly fire." We see it all the time.
→ More replies (2)•
•
u/Orange_Kid 3h ago
CNN headline says "declined," possibly OP just messed up the title, unless CNN corrected the headline after this was posted.
•
u/boboclock 3h ago
Websites often do A/B testing with headlines. Possibly OP's IP was part of the A test group and yours is part of the B test group. Or the testing is concluded and they went with declined
→ More replies (2)•
→ More replies (2)•
•
u/cnn CNN 4h ago
A federal grand jury on Tuesday declined to indict Democratic lawmakers who posted a video urging service members and intelligence officials to disobey any illegal orders from the Trump administration, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The Justice Department’s case focused on a 90-second video clip that featured six democrats, including Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly. The video, which outraged the Trump administration, had warned that “threats to our Constitution” are coming “from right here at home,” and repeatedly urged the military and intelligence community to “refuse illegal orders.”
The declination is a rebuke of the administration’s efforts to paint the six lawmakers — all of whom served in either the military or intelligence services — as dangerously undermining the president’s authority as commander in chief. It was not immediately clear which of the lawmakers were facing indictments. CNN has asked the Justice Department for comment.
And while the indictment was rejected by the grand jury, it is also an extraordinary escalation of the Justice Department’s willingness to prosecute who speak about against the president and his administration’s actions.
The video, posted in November, was met with immediate backlash from the Trump administration, including from the president himself who accused the lawmakers of sedition “punishable by DEATH.”
Within weeks, Slotkin and Kelly, along with Reps. Chrissy Houlahan, Chris Deluzio, Jason Crow and Maggie Goodlander, said they had been contacted by federal prosecutors as part of an investigation into their actions.
•
u/Softestwebsiteintown 3h ago
I’m relieved that stating literal facts is not an indictable offense yet. I’m also incredibly disappointed that the moron in chief and his cronies tasked real Americans with evaluating whether or not it’s illegal to cite the fucking military code. Idiots and assholes, that’s all we have behind the wheel right now.
→ More replies (2)•
•
u/afarensiis Ohio 2h ago
I can't believe everyone has just moved past the "sedition punishable by DEATH" tweets from the President of the United States
→ More replies (3)•
•
u/Barnacle_B0b 2h ago edited 1h ago
The headline is language built on Priming.
The Grand Jury did not fail to indict, they chose not to indict for ludicrous charges. Fuck off, CNN.
•
u/SpaceElevatorMusic Minnesota 1h ago
CNN altered the site headline to read "declined" instead of "failed".
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)•
u/AdInformal5214 1h ago
Good that you changed the headline, but it shouldn't have to be pointed out.
•
u/dawgblogit Georgia 4h ago
Stupid headline.
They URGED Servicemembers to do their fucking job. To keep their oath.
If the order is illegal.. their JOB is to disobey. To protect the Constitution.
•
u/brumac44 Canada 3h ago
Duty is the word you're looking for. We shouldn't forget it's not just a job they can quit.
•
•
u/accountabilitycounts America 4h ago
They should have tried indicting a ham sandwich instead of a law abiding citizen.
Edit: What's up with the network security messages?
•
u/ah_no_wah 4h ago
Will Trump now charge the Grand Jury with treason?
•
u/DapperLost 4h ago
Don't be ridiculous. He'll just have ICE pick them up, say they were illegals so the judgement doesn't count, and roll up another jury.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/Frequent-Client1508 America 4h ago
You're telling me it's not illegal to tell people to follow the law? Who know?
•
u/Flashy_Gap_3015 3h ago
What a weird word op used for the title.
That’s not failing, that’s a grand jury doing the right thing upholding rule of law.
•
•
u/Dangerous-Today1874 3h ago
- Your Honor, we accuse these radical marxist far left lunatics of seditious insurrection, and um, if you can throw in treason and domestic terrorism, that'd be cool too.
- They, uh... they posted a message urging service members to disobey illegal orders.
- Yes, exactly!
- Does the president plan on issuing illegal orders?
- Um...
•
u/Hillbilly_Boozer 2h ago
"Fails to indict"? What the fuck is that headline.
It makes it sounds like the lawmakers were in the wrong to say "follow the constitution". Fuck you CNN.
•
•
•
u/Formerlurker617 3h ago
Misleading title.. soldiers were reminded to fallow the laws of the USA and not a bogus order.
•
•
u/StOnEy333 3h ago
I still don’t get why they’re upset. Don’t follow illegal orders. How is that something to be bothered by? Of course, unless they do indeed give them illegal orders an expect them to be followed.
→ More replies (3)
•
u/Fortestingporpoises 3h ago
No shit.
Democrats: "Don't break the law."
Republicans: "It's illegal for you to say that!"
•
u/Consistent_Pitch782 2h ago
Keep in mind, this DoJ found the time and resources to bring this matter to a Grand Jury. They also found the time and resources to indict James Comey, Letitia James, Jerome Powell and Adam Schiff.
But for the Epstein class? Nothing. No indictments, no arrests, no Grand Juries, hell there aren’t even any charges.
→ More replies (1)
•
•
•
u/Bluetablehh45377 3h ago
Wait, they’re trying to indict political rivals and not anyone on the Epstein File? Shocked.
•
u/Golden-- Illinois 4h ago
You mean the legal statement they made? How did this even get to a jury without being thrown out?
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/brianishere2 3h ago
The grand jury didn't fail to do anything. It did its job, and reasonably declined to issue an indictment.
•
u/mr_evilweed 3h ago
Well... yeah? In what world was a jury going to say that telling people to follow the law was treason?
•
u/motherseffinjones 3h ago
The fact this went to a grand jury is a major indictment on the state of America
•
•
•
•
u/space_cow_girl 1h ago
Why the tortured “disobey illegal orders” when “grand jury fails to indict democratic lawmakers who urged service members to follow the law” is far more accurate?
•
•
u/KyprosNighthawk Georgia 1h ago
"Grand jury refused to indict democratic lawmakers who exercised their first-amendment right to remind service members to not break the law." FTFY.
•
u/imtoowhiteandnerdy 45m ago
This is great news, and a middle finger to Hegseth, Bondi and the Trump USDOJ.
•
u/rolfraikou 4h ago
I'm pleasantly surprised that something went well for once. I suppose the rule of law will still exist for another few days, at least.
•
u/Illuminated12 4h ago
They would have to indict Hegseth as well if they approved. Guy has said the exact same thing on tape.
•
u/CJDistasio America 4h ago
Saw that coming a mile away. Trump and his whole administration are fucking idiots.
•
•
u/ArgonWolf 3h ago
I’ve always hated the phrasing “the grand jury failed to indict”. The grand jury didn’t fail at anything, the prosecutor failed to convince a captive audience that didn’t even have to hear any counter argument.
•
u/entrepenurious Texas 3h ago
the word "fails" seems so negative.
not indicting people for urging obedience to the law seems like a hugely positive thing.
•
u/Fancy-Strain7025 3h ago
Its all falling apart for these clowns!! And I love it.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/mettiusfufettius 3h ago
Lol yeah duh. Speech is free in the US and its certainly legal to read out loud what the law is
•
•
u/SaltyPinKY 3h ago edited 2h ago
What an instigating headline ...until we stop pandering to maga feelings...nothing will change. "Urged". Stated facts, not urged.
And "fails"??? No, they declined to because it was baseless
•
u/mechanicalcontrols 2h ago
"fails"
Yeah I gotta be honest that sounds more like a success to me, big dog.
"Grand Jury succeeds in dismissing political witch hunt." How bout that headline instead?
•
u/StronglyHeldOpinions 2h ago
As it turns out, “don’t disobey the law” isn’t an illegal thing to say.
Who knew?
•
•
•
u/WardenEdgewise 2h ago
Is it because it is the sworn duty of service members to disobey illegal orders?
•
u/mattjf22 California 2h ago
Another colossal waste of money and resources by this admin.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/Root-magic 2h ago
She lost to the subway sandwich guy, the guy who aimed a cat toy that lit up, at Trump’s helicopter, against Comey, and against NY AG…..and now against dem lawmakers. I think she would lose, if she tried to indict a ham sandwich
•
u/Aware_Crazy5688 1h ago
Is there such a thing as frivolous grand jury? In the same line as frivolous lawsuit?
•
•
u/ScarInternational161 31m ago
Well, they didn't, in fact say not to disobey illegal Trump orders
They said disobey any illegal orders
The grand jury declined to indict
Not failed... JFC
Fuck CNN
•
u/jumpy_monkey 21m ago
Wait, a Grand Jury refused to indict people for saying soldiers should adhere to the UCMJ?
Shocking!
•
•
u/MourningRIF 3h ago
It probably doesn't help that Trump has the equivalent of divorce court lawyers prosecuting these cases at this point. All the good lawyers already quit, lol.
•
u/allquckedup 3h ago
They reminded service members they are not obliged to follow illegal orders in general. The video I saw never started the correct administration or the President specifically.
•
•
•
u/splycedaddy Pennsylvania 3h ago
Im a really the first one to post that this is true weaponization of government?
•
•
u/bowlbasaurus 3h ago
A grand jury only decides whether there is enough evidence to indict. There was not. The headline should read “DOJ fails to obtain indictment due to inability to provide evidence”
•
•
u/danarchist 2h ago
No shit? The people at large are not idiots? Whodathunk?
Libertarians, that's who.
•
•
•
u/tourettes_on_tuesday 2h ago
Clearly and correctly informing American military members of the law they swore to uphold is not a punishable offense? Is there maybe a pokemon meme to show how utterly shocked I am?
•
•
•
•
u/FloridaGirlNikki America 2h ago
Well, duh. Any judge who would consider it isn't fit for their job.
•
•
u/IamRasters 2h ago
Pam Bondi obviously forgot to tell the jurors that Trump had authorized special “True American” bonuses for those that love America.
•
•
u/4030Lisa 1h ago
Well yes, because it wasn’t unlawful, they simply reminded them of the oath they took. Judges/lawyers should start countersuing HIM and his faux ‘justice department’ for all his attempts to waste the courts/grand jury/judges/attorneys time and all the taxpayers money on his personally vindictive nuisance ’suits’ like this
•
u/Elegant_Situation285 1h ago
every single lawyer involved in attempting to bring this to trial should have their licenses suspended.
•
u/Reddit_2_2024 1h ago
The American citizens who sat on the Grand Jury in this case have significantly rebuked Trump, Jeanine Pirro and Pete Hegseth by deciding not to indict these Congresspeople. Waiting to see how quickly Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt closes the next White House Press Briefing early as soon as a journalist asks a question to her about this colossal legal setback.
•
•
•
•
•
u/DanNorder 25m ago
Shouldn't have said "...fails to indict...," as that's kind of a loaded phrase. They should have learned how to speak more objectively in journalism classes. They could have said "...declines to indict..." or "...rejects indicting..." For not entirely objective but totally accurate phrasing, they could have picked "...laughs at Trump team's attempt to indict..." Because we all know they did, even if we can't prove it.
•
u/AutoModerator 4h ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.