Grand Jury Refuses to Indict Democratic ‘Seditious Six’ Lawmakers
The government and courts did not reveal the charges or which members were named in the indictment.
A Washington, DC, grand jury refused to indict Democratic lawmakers who made a video urging military and intelligence agency members to disobey illegal orders, according to numerous outlets.
The government and courts did not reveal the charges or which members were named in the indictment.
These are the lawmakers in the video:
- Rep. Jason Crow (CO)
- Rep. Chris Deluzio (PA)
- Rep. Maggie Goodlaner (NH)
- Rep. Chriss Houlahan (PA)
- Sen. Mark Kelly (AZ)
- Sen. Elissa Slotkin (MI)
Sedition is defined as “incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.”
The Sedition Act of 1798 did not last long, expiring in 1801.
However, people can face charges under 18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy:
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) wrote on X that U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro targeted her:
But today wasn’t just an embarrassing day for the Administration. It was another sad day for our country.
Because whether or not Pirro succeeded is not the point. It’s that President Trump continues to weaponize our justice system against his perceived enemies. It’s the kind of thing you see in a foreign country, not in the United States we know and love.
No matter what President Trump and Pirro continue to do with this case, tonight we can score one for the Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law.
Today, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro attempted to persuade a Grand Jury to indict me. This was in response to me organizing a 90-second video that simply quoted the law. Pirro did this at the direction of President Trump, who said repeatedly that I should be investigated, arrested,…
— Sen. Elissa Slotkin (@SenatorSlotkin) February 11, 2026
The lawmakers said in the video:
This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.
Our laws are clear.
You can refuse illegal orders. (Repeated twice.)
You must refuse illegal orders.
No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard. And it’s a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you’re serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back. Because now, more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans.
No, you cannot refuse illegal orders because, according to Military Defense, “All military orders are presumed lawful.”
And if a military member believes “an order is manifestly unlawful,” there is a process:
Important Note: All military orders are presumed lawful. The burden falls on the service member to establish that an order is manifestly unlawful. This is a high standard, and hesitation or refusal can carry serious consequences—even if ultimately justified.
Because of this legal complexity, service members should consult with legal counsel as soon as they suspect an order may be unlawful. Do not disobey an order without first seeking guidance from a qualified military attorney, unless the order is clearly illegal on its face (e.g., ordering you to shoot unarmed civilians).
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“ The government and courts did not reveal the charges or which members were named in the indictment.”
Kind of begs the question as to why the f88k they tried this with a grand jury if they didn’t tell them what laws they had broken? 🤔
They obviously did tell the grand jurors what laws they alleged the six had broken. They didn’t reveal it to the public because it’s none of our business. It’s not standard for us to find out anything that happens in a grand jury. In this case it was the suspects who revealed it.
In any case the grand jury didn’t buy the government’s case, in my opinion because it was manifestly bogus.
The DC courts are a disgrace. They need to be closed and folded into Virginia.
This could be done with a simple majority vote. It would be easier and require fewer votes than impeaching a single judge.
It was planned to fail. Who knew?
6.47% of the voters in DC voted for Trump. That Bondi would think that she can get an indictment there of any opponent of Trump or dem is beyond me. Now if we’re talking about a supporter of the President or Republican, indict away!
DC,, the most incestuously corrupt jurisdiction in the country. Maybe the world.
You’ll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy,”
I’m sure DEEP STATE BLONDI knew what she was doing when she had no problem with the DC venue.
Honestly, this was all a bit too theatrical to ever succeed. They didn’t communicate directly with anyone and thus it would be difficult to prove that they actually planned and coordinated an unlawful conspiracy.
The claim apparently is that they conspired with each other. The problem with that is that no member of the conspiracy was to commit a crime. The whole thing is an exercise in begging the question. It presumes a crime, and then charges conspiracy to commit that crime. But there’s no underlying crime in the first place.
After reading the statute, I have to agree. It clearly requires that the defendants have agreed to act against the government “by force”. And I just don’t see how the “by force” element is satisfied on these facts.
To whomever downvoted me, I’d love to know how you believe the accused conspired to act against the government “by force”.
In other words, even assuming they intended to induce military members to disobey lawful orders (which I believe they did intend), where did they encourage them to do so by force?
I concede I may have missed something, so if you have an answer, please share it.
The “lawmakers” are scum. However 5 of them had the right to say what they said. Kelly though is governed by military law and probably was stupid to shoot his big mouth off. I hope he suffers the consequences. I’d be fine with that and consider it sufficient.
Bring in half a dozen ham sandwiches and see what they do.
Conviction seemed certain… then the evidence disappeared.
Sorry, but this part of the article is deceptive at best.
“Military Defense” sounds like an official government organization. It is not. The citation comes from a website with the name of “militarydefense.com” and is actually the “Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC.”
In other words, it not the UCMJ, lawyer within any branch of the service, currently serving in the military, or associated with the military.
It is also interesting that before the cited passage, there is this:
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92, service members are required to obey lawful orders. However, not all orders are lawful, and military law draws a clear distinction between orders that must be followed and those that must be refused.
An unlawful order is one that requires the commission of a criminal act or violates the Constitution, U.S. federal law, or applicable international law.
Examples of Unlawful Orders:
Targeting or intentionally harming civilians
Torturing or abusing detainees
Falsifying operational or legal records
Engaging in unauthorized political or domestic law enforcement actions
So there are orders that on their face are illegal and need not be obeyed with any “process.”
And while Chastain says there is a “process,” that “process” is to contact a lawyer like Sheldon. It is not an “official” process at all.
The legislators told people to not obey illegal orders. Somehow people think that is “sedition.”
It is not.
“The legislators told people to not obey illegal orders. Somehow people think that is “sedition.” It is not.”
Nope, just pure, unadulterated adult education.
I’m eagerly awaiting the ones where these six heroes of American adult education school us on the importance of daily dental hygiene and weekly tire pressure checking. What’s the holdup?
That the video wasn’t made out of a pure and altruistic dedication to public service doesn’t make it criminal.
It wasn’t “pure, unadulterated adult education”, it was just political manipulation, cynically exploting the armed forces for domestic political advantage. So what else is new? That’s how politicians have behaved literally for centuries.
Never said it was criminal. A lot of corrupt, evil, moronic, boneheadedness is perfectly legal.
These congressmen didn’t conspire to do any of those things. They didn’t even advocate that other people should do these things, but let’s suppose for a moment that they had. That is not included in the law, and the reason it’s not included is that it’s protected speech that Congress can’t ban.
That is incorrect. That all orders are presumed to be lawful doesn’t make them actually lawful.
Someone who receives an order he knows or ought to know to be unlawful is required to refuse. Someone who receives an order he only suspects is unlawful is not required to take a chance by refusing. He can choose to obey the order and take refuge in the presumption of lawfulness, and be assured that he won’t get in trouble for it. But he doesn’t have to do that. He can seek private legal advice, or he can just refuse and take his chances. If he turns out to have been right, he gets off; if it turns out the order was legal then he’s in trouble.
And that process is, if you’re absolutely sure it’s unlawful you should disobey, if you’re not sure you should take legal advice. Nothing in the video suggested in any way that they should not follow this process. It simply stated the law, which they already know anyway.
As I wrote at the time, I think it’s perfectly obvious that the target audience for the video was not the military. They are already well aware of everything the video says, and the congressmen who made it know that. They’re not actually concerned that some poor service member doesn’t know this, and will obey an obviously unlawful order, such as the kind tried at Nuremberg.
The video’s target audience was the general public, and its purpose was to put it into voters’ minds that this administration is likely to give Nuremberg-type orders, because Trump is Literally Hitler™. And that the only solution to that problem, the only way to prevent him from giving such orders and putting the military in the position of having to refuse them, is to vote Democrat so they can impeach him and Restore Democracy™, like we had under 0bama and Biden.
The video is not seditious, it’s and political. It’s not intended to protect our servicemen, but to cynically exploit them in order to scare people into voting Democrat. The six members are leveraging their previous service in order to advance their political party, and they don’t care about the consequences to the USA; if they cared they wouldn’t be Democrats.
“It’s that President Trump continues to weaponize our justice system against his perceived enemies. It’s the kind of thing you see in a foreign country, not in the United States we know and love.”
And we never saw it here, until her fellow Democrats went all-in with it in 2016. Sorry, not sorry.
Note that the presumption of lawfulness doesn’t mean a serviceman is required to presume his orders to be lawful. It means he’s entitled so to presume them, unless it’s obvious that they’re not, and if they later turn out to have been unlawful he won’t be in trouble. Presuming an order to be lawful even when you suspect it might not be, is the safe path.
But if the presumption turns out to be wrong, and the order was unlawful, then although you can’t be charged for obeying it you will still have broken the law. You may or may not care about that, but the truth remains the truth.
It’s like policemen’s qualified immunity. If there’s never been a court decision that something is illegal for them to do, then if they do it they can’t be sued, even if it’s completely obvious that it is in fact illegal. That doesn’t mean they have any right to do it, it just means they can get away with it.
the same grand jury would have also said oj was innocent
and the attempts on djts life were just peaceful events gone wrong
The only way those knuckle-draggers in DC will indict a politician is if he’s Republican.
Investigation of the charges of sedition was enough of a ‘brush back pitch’. Taking this to a Grand Jury was doomed to fail. IMO taking it to a Grand Jury just to chalk up a loss was politically dumb and serves to bolster the d/prog claims about political retribution within their base and frankly to those outside their base honest enough to admit it.
In the context of their video, these Democrat Leftist Slimeballs (I had to say something derogatory about them) did not directly accuse Trump and the subordinate commanders of issuing illegal orders.
BUT
In other venues Democrat Leftist Slimeballs (maybe not The Six) accused Trump of issuing illegal orders to go after the drug runners in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. If any of The Six did do this though, they did commit seditious conspiracy by their declaration of illegality and then telling military members not to follow orders on their direction.
There’s a key element in the statute required for enforcement: ‘by force’. They didn’t use any force.
A grand jury convened in DC which voted 90% for Harris/Walz declines to indict Democrats. This is a stunning turn of events.
Quoting the law witha Dog Whistle
I can almost promise you that every single person on that grand jury was a Democrat, who wants to bet me on that?
Statistically it should only have been 90.28% which would be 10.8 jurors. Of course stats also say there won’t be a Republican on the jury so …
The real question is, “Would a DC grand jury indict a ham sandwich?”
The answer? That depends on whether or not the defendant [ham sandwich] was a democrat or Republican.
The lesson? Democrats are free to commit crimes in safe [blue] states.
What kind of idiot would even try this. Stupid stunt and would never get past 1A Rights in the Court. The only person that can be held accountable is Kelly under UCMJ.
I’d go on X and tell that fat, ugly liberal slutcan to chase the ham sandwich I rolled down the hall again but pretty sure I’d catch another week ban again.
Trump should clean out the cia if he has time.
Leave a Comment