Jeanine Pirro’s office shelves pursuit of Democrats over social video, sources say

Jeanine Pirro’s office has decided to drop charges against six Democratic lawmakers who urged members of the military and intelligence communities in a social media video not to comply with illegal orders, three people familiar with the matter told NBC News.

About two weeks ago, as first reported by NBC News, a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., unanimously rejected an attempt by Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, to indict the lawmakers over the video, illustrating that the grand jurors did not believe the government had exceeded even the low legal threshold of probable cause required to file an indictment.

Although a possible case against the six lawmakers is now considered dead in Washington, the ruling would not necessarily prevent a federal prosecutor from trying to bring the case to another federal court, although there is no public indication that will happen.

Legal experts and Democrats have criticized the unprecedented attempt to use the Justice Department’s immense powers to punish six members of Congress, calling it a purely political attack on protected free speech and a sign of the erosion of safeguards that existed under the first Trump administration.

Pirro’s office had attempted to indict six Democratic lawmakers, all of whom have military or intelligence backgrounds: Senators Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mark Kelly of Arizona and Representatives Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Jason Crow of Colorado, and Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania.

In a series of social media posts, President Donald Trump said the lawmakers were traitors who committed “SEDITION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.”

While Trump suggested the lawmakers’ behavior was perhaps punishable by the death penalty, a grand jury found no evidence of such behavior. crime.

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, service members are required to obey only lawful orders and must refuse those that are clearly illegal.

Lawmakers said after failed impeachment attempt that they would not be intimidated by efforts to stifle free speech.

“Whether Pirro was successful or not is not the question,” Slotkin said. “It’s because President Trump continues to weaponize our justice system against his perceived enemies.”

When asked if Pirro and Trump had spoken about possible lawsuits against the lawmakers, a spokesperson for Pirro declined to comment. A White House official said the administration does not comment on potential conversations the president may or may not have had.

Since the Watergate era, administrations of both parties have worked to varying degrees to create a firewall between the Justice Department and the White House, allowing the president to broadly set his administration’s policy but avoid interference in prosecutorial decision-making or even communications that would create the appearance of impropriety.

Former Attorney General Merrick Garland wrote in a 2021 memo that the Justice Department would not advise the White House on pending or proposed criminal cases in order to “protect” leaders from “inappropriate influences” unless it was “material to the President’s performance of his duties.”

The question of possible political influence on criminal investigations is traditionally a bipartisan issue. In 2016, when Bill Clinton boarded former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s plane as the Justice Department was investigating Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified emails, the brief encounter on the airport tarmac sparked outrage among some Republicans, with Trump himself calling it “so terrible” and “so horrible” and deeming it one of the biggest stories of 2016.

Over the past year, Trump publicly posted a message on social media pressuring Attorney General Pam Bondi to take action against a number of his political enemies, and he praised FBI agents after they raided an election center in Fulton County, Georgia, during the 2020 presidential election.

FBI Director Kash Patel put Trump on speakerphone as he opened a drink in the locker room Sunday after the U.S. men’s hockey team won the gold medal at the Winter Olympics in Milan Cortina. according to a video posted on social media, although the two men did not discuss any investigation while Trump was on the phone with the hockey players.

Pirro, a former Fox News host, has a decades-long relationship with Trump, who appointed her as the top federal prosecutor in Washington after Senate Republicans bristled at the nomination of Ed Martin, a longtime conservative activist and defender of the Jan. 6 rioters who led the “Arms Task Force” and continues to serve as the Justice Department’s pardon attorney.

“She is in a class of her own,” Trump wrote, naming Pirro. “Congratulations Jeanine!

In the days before Pirro’s lawyers presented the case to a federal grand jury, Pirro posted more than a dozen messages praising Trump, although she never spoke publicly about the case against the lawmakers or linked it to Trump. One article said criminal cases were being initiated “at the direction of @POTUS.” On Monday, she posted a video recorded “right in front of the White House” in which she praised Trump.

And last week, huge banners bearing Trump’s image were hung outside the Justice Department headquarters.

The New York Times reported last week that Pirro “abruptly” asked his team to seek the indictment.

In a Feb. 5 letter to Pirro copied from two attorneys who tried to bring the case, Carlton Davis and Steven Vandervelden, former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara — representing Slotkin — wrote that it was “confusing” that the Justice Department had opened an investigation into the matter. The letter noted that he spoke to Pirro’s “special attorneys” on January 14 and another on January 27.

“The prosecutors we spoke with in your office, while courteous, could not articulate any theory of possible criminal liability or identify any law they relied on that may have been violated,” he wrote, as first reported by The New Republic.

Pirro’s office cannot comment on grand jury matters.

Bharara later wrote in a letter to Pirro that the grand jury spoke “loudly, clearly and unanimously” and said continuing to pursue the case would be a violation of Justice Department policy.

Paul Fishman, a former U.S. attorney who represents Kelly, wrote in a letter to Pirro’s office that attempting to seek an indictment again “would be a remarkable abuse of the department’s power.”

“This guy thought I was going to jail,” Kelly told reporters Monday. “He wants to send me to prison.”

He nevertheless said he would attend Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday. “I’m going to continue to do my job, and I’m going to sit right in front of him,” he said. “You know, maybe he’ll notice, maybe he won’t, but I feel like it’s my obligation, you know, to be there.”