A grand jury basically threw out the case that Trump’s prosecutors tried to bring, and in doing so made the whole effort look foolish. But even though it ended in embarrassment, the new details coming out about how these cases were handled show something much more serious beneath the surface. What happened wasn’t just a joke gone wrong. It points to real misuse of power.
There is some good news. So far, Donald Trump’s attempts to put his Democratic opponents in legal trouble have mostly failed, and often in clumsy, almost comical ways. He has gone after people like Senator Adam Schiff, former FBI director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and six Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a video that angered him. Up to now, those efforts have not succeeded.
But there is a deeper problem. Because these attempts have fallen apart so publicly and awkwardly, it is easy to laugh at them and move on. The danger is that people may start to see them as harmless incompetence instead of what they really are: efforts to use government power to punish political opponents. If we treat them like slapstick comedy, we may not be ready for the next, more organized attempt.
Take the case of the six Democrats who appeared in a video last year. In that video, they warned members of the military and government officials that they are not required to follow illegal orders. After the video came out, Trump exploded in anger. He called them “traitors” and demanded they be arrested and put on trial. Soon after, the FBI contacted the lawmakers to arrange interviews.
Last week, federal prosecutors tried to get a grand jury to approve criminal charges against those lawmakers, including Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, along with four House members. The effort failed badly. The grand jury unanimously rejected the indictment. That is highly unusual. Grand juries almost always approve charges when prosecutors ask for them. Failing to convince even one juror was a major humiliation for Trump and for Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., who has played a central role in these prosecutions.
Even though the case collapsed, the way it was handled should worry people. After the FBI first contacted the lawmakers, prosecutors in Pirro’s office followed up. One of the lawmakers, Slotkin, was represented by attorney Preet Bharara. He directly asked the prosecutors a basic question: what law had these Democrats supposedly broken? According to people familiar with the conversations, the prosecutors could not name a single statute.
In other words, when asked what crime had been committed, they had no clear answer. They could not explain their legal theory. They could not point to a specific law. And yet, despite that, they still moved forward and tried to secure an indictment. It is still unclear exactly what law they relied on in their failed attempt.
In a letter sent in early February, Bharara hinted at how strange this was. He wrote that the prosecutors, while polite, were unable to explain any possible criminal theory or identify any statute that might have been violated. Behind that careful legal language, the situation appears even more troubling. People familiar with the discussions say the prosecutors spoke as if the case was still in very early stages, the kind of preliminary inquiry that usually happens at the beginning of an investigation.
Normally, prosecutors do not rush to a grand jury at that point. The speed of the indictment attempt suggests that something pushed the process forward quickly, possibly pressure from higher up. Legal experts say it is highly unusual for prosecutors to refuse to explain the legal basis for a case and then seek an indictment anyway. That is not how federal prosecutors are supposed to operate.
There are other red flags. According to Bloomberg, Pirro brought in two outside lawyers to help prosecute the case. One of them is a dance photographer who had worked for her decades ago. Neither appears to have much experience at the Justice Department. That raises questions about whether career prosecutors were unwilling to take on the case and whether these outsiders were brought in to handle a politically sensitive “special project.”
Legal scholars have warned that the Justice Department’s credibility depends on public trust. People need to believe that prosecutions are based on evidence and law, not on political pressure from those in power. When it looks like cases are being pushed forward without a clear legal foundation, that trust is damaged.
The underlying case against these lawmakers was weak from the start. Saying that military members do not have to follow illegal orders is simply stating a basic principle of law. The Democrats did not call for rebellion. They did not point to any specific order. They were expressing a legal opinion, which is protected speech under the Constitution. Treating that as a crime stretches the idea of criminal conduct far beyond reason.
This failed case is part of a larger pattern. Other attempts to target Trump’s critics, including Letitia James, James Comey, Adam Schiff, and even Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, have stalled or backfired. In some instances, the efforts seemed driven more by anger than by solid legal grounds.
Even when these prosecutions fail, the damage can still be real. Being investigated or threatened with charges costs time, money, and emotional energy. It can scare people into silence. Lawmakers, public officials, and critics may decide it is safer to stay quiet than to risk becoming the next target. That chilling effect can weaken democratic debate and accountability.
It is tempting to laugh at the chaos and incompetence. The whole thing can feel like a bad comedy, with officials stumbling over their own feet. But these are not harmless mistakes. The people involved control the powerful machinery of the federal criminal justice system. If that machinery is used to settle political scores, even clumsily, it sets a dangerous example.
So far, the attempts have failed. That is reassuring. But if the push to prosecute political opponents continues, it may only take one successful case to change the landscape in a much more serious way.
