By Emmanuel Bobby
An attorney for Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Arizona, is urging U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro and Attorney General Pam Bondi not to pursue a second attempt to indict a group of Democratic lawmakers over their participation in a controversial video that encouraged members of the military to refuse “illegal orders.” In a sharply worded letter sent Friday, Kelly’s attorney, Paul Fishman, warned that seeking another indictment would represent a serious misuse of prosecutorial authority and an unprecedented overreach by the Justice Department.
“The Department’s decision to go back to a grand jury on this matter would be a remarkable abuse of its power,” Fishman wrote. “There has never been any factual or legal basis for such an investigation or prosecution.”
The Justice Department’s first attempt to indict the lawmakers failed earlier this month when a grand jury declined to bring charges, determining that prosecutors had not met the low threshold of probable cause required for an indictment. The case targeted Kelly, Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, and Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania.
Slotkin’s attorney also sent a separate letter to Pirro and Bondi, emphasizing the significance of the grand jury’s decision. “The grand jury has spoken, loudly, clearly, and unanimously,” attorney Preet Bharara wrote, arguing that any continued pursuit of charges would violate Justice Department policies and ethical standards governing prosecutors.
Video That Triggered the Investigation
The lawmakers became a focus of the Trump administration after they released a video in November addressed to U.S. military personnel. In the video, they stated, “You can refuse illegal orders,” and urged service members to uphold their constitutional responsibilities. The message, intended as a reminder of lawful military obligations, drew fierce criticism from President Donald Trump, who accused the lawmakers of “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” in a post on his social media platform Truth Social.
While the specific charges prosecutors sought during the initial grand jury process have not been disclosed, the effort raised significant concerns among legal experts and civil liberties advocates about potential criminalization of political speech and constitutional guidance provided to service members.
Judge’s Ruling Strengthens Kelly’s Defense
Fishman’s letter also cited a recent federal court ruling that blocked the Department of Defense from punishing Kelly for participating in the video. The Pentagon had attempted to downgrade Kelly’s military retirement rank and pay, but U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled against the move, stating that the government had violated Kelly’s constitutional rights.
“This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees,” Leon wrote in his decision.
Fishman argued that the judge’s reasoning applies even more strongly in the context of criminal prosecution. “Because Senator Kelly’s speech is protected by the First Amendment, it cannot be the basis for a criminal charge,” he wrote. “And a grand jury properly instructed on the law could not conceivably conclude otherwise.”
Broader Implications
The dispute underscores growing tensions between the Trump administration and Democratic lawmakers over speech, national security, and the limits of political expression. Legal experts say attempting a second indictment after a grand jury declined to charge could raise questions about prosecutorial discretion, political retaliation, and the boundaries of protected speech under the Constitution.
As the Justice Department considers its next steps, the case is likely to remain a flashpoint in debates over civil liberties, military ethics, and the role of political leaders in addressing service members during periods of intense political polarization.
Original article
Comments