Die Grand Jury versäumt es, demokratische Gesetzgeber anzuklagen, die Militärangehörige dazu drängten, illegalen Trump-Befehlen nicht zu gehorchen

https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/10/politics/lawmakers-indicted-illegal-orders-video?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=reddit

30 Kommentare

  1. A federal grand jury on Tuesday [declined to indict Democratic lawmakers](https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/10/politics/lawmakers-indicted-illegal-orders-video?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=reddit) 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Mikethebest78 on

    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.

  4. accountabilitycounts on

    They should have tried indicting a ham sandwich instead of a law abiding citizen.

    Edit: What’s up with the network security messages?

  5. bensquirrel on

    It was a sham. The DOJ staff working on this should be ashamed of their corruption.

  6. You mean the legal statement they made? How did this even get to a jury without being thrown out?

  7. Frequent-Client1508 on

    You’re telling me it’s not illegal to tell people to follow the law? Who know?

  8. 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.

  9. Illuminated12 on

    They would have to indict Hegseth as well if they approved. Guy has said the exact same thing on tape.

  10. Saw that coming a mile away. Trump and his whole administration are fucking idiots.

  11. 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.

  12. Probable_Bison on

    This headline is busted.

    The DOJ failed to get an indictment.

    The grand jury *declined* to indict.

    FFS CNN

  13. brianishere2 on

    The grand jury didn’t fail to do anything. It did its job, and reasonably declined to issue an indictment.

  14. mr_evilweed on

    Well… yeah? In what world was a jury going to say that telling people to follow the law was treason?

  15. 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.

  16. mettiusfufettius on

    Lol yeah duh. Speech is free in the US and its certainly legal to read out loud what the law is

  17. Fortestingporpoises on

    No shit.

    Democrats: „Don’t break the law.“

    Republicans: „It’s illegal for you to say that!“

  18. Flashy_Gap_3015 on

    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.

Leave A Reply