this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
147 points (99.3% liked)

politics

28242 readers
2209 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The rejection was a remarkable rebuke, suggesting that ordinary citizens did not believe that the lawmakers had committed any crimes.

Federal prosecutors in Washington sought and failed on Tuesday to secure an indictment against six Democratic lawmakers who posted a video this fall that enraged President Trump by reminding active-duty members of the military and intelligence community that they were obligated to refuse illegal orders, four people familiar with the matter said.

It was remarkable that the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington — led by Jeanine Pirro, a longtime ally of Mr. Trump’s — authorized prosecutors to go into a grand jury and ask for an indictment of the six members of Congress, all of whom had served in the military or the nation’s spy agencies.

But it was even more remarkable that a group of ordinary citizens sitting on the grand jury in Federal District Court in Washington rejected the effort, sending a signal that they did not believe that the lawmakers had committed any crimes.

It had been exceedingly rare for grand jurors to rebuff requests by prosecutors seeking indictments, although it has happened with increased frequency to the Justice Department under Mr. Trump, as his appointees push ahead with questionable cases.

MBFC
Archive

top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Soulphite@reddthat.com 37 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The day it's against the law to piss off the President is the day America has reversed its independence.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It basically is when he had the full DOJ indicting and investigating anyone he doesn’t like. 

Sue, you’re not going to jail for saying a mean thing, you’re going to jail for a typo you corrected on a mortgage application instead. 

That’s not much better. And they’ll fight you until you’re broke. 

[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Trump: "Waaah! Waaaah! The Democrats are doing lawfare just because I incited an insurrection, hoarded top secret documents and refused steadfastly to return them, paid off a pornstar to hush up my affair and committed countless instances of fraud!"

"You're the president now."

Trump: "To the lawfare-mobile!"

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 13 points 3 days ago

I mean, sure, sometimes you want to prosecute and there's just not enough there to justify it. It happens. But shit like this, there should be some type of blow back. Six people went on camera to state what the actual god damn law is, and Pirro tries to have them indicted for that? Abuse of power or something. Fuck I wish these fucks had consequences.

[–] Tujio@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

Should be a foregone conclusion for anybody who knows the USMCC. Or the Geneva Convention. Or the history of the Nuremberg trials. Or has a modicum of human decency.

So obviously Trump's goons tried for an indictment.