According to The New York Times, federal prosecutors argued that the Democrats had “violated a statute that forbids interfering with the loyalty, morale or discipline of the U.S. armed forces.”

Members of the grand jury did not seem to agree.

“This is an outrageous abuse of power by Donald Trump and his lackies [sic],” Kelly wrote in a Tuesday post on Twitter in response to prosecutors’ pursuit of an indictment. “It wasn’t enough for Pete Hegseth to censure me and threaten to demote me, now it appears they tried to have me charged with a crime — all because of something I said that they didn’t like. That’s not the way things work in America.”

Aw, the fags let the fag off? What fucking gay fags.

Hegseth said the same thing a few years ago. Not surprised he doesn't remember though, considering how pickled his brain is.

>>1488064
He does what he’s told or they cut off his alcohol tab. You think he’s gonna jeopardize that?

>>1488078
He cut off his foreskin so anything's possible.

>>1488050
>Americans side with Americans against the fascist conservative regime
I'm shocked, SHOCKED!

>>1488101
>Fascist
>Conservative
Get your eyes checked.

>>1488102
It's the same thing so it is redundant.

>>1488046
It's typically a cakewalk to get a case past a Grand Jury, to the point that it's said that any reasonably competent prosecutor could get one to indict a fucking ham sandwich. Shows just how fucking stupid this whole affair is to screw up at step one.

>>1488117
>get a case past a Grand Jury
Grand Juries literally just check that there appears a crime was committed and the suspect appears to have done it. There is *some* evidence.

>>1488165
>*Some*
Like what? trump tried to get some people arrested for reminding the military that they could refuse illegal orders. Which is 100% correct.
This is just trump being a fascist again in abusing the courts to prosecute people who stand up for the constitution, aka his enemies.

Courts need to start punishing the Trump admin for wasting their time with frivolous lawsuits like this.
There is a clear pattern at this point with Comey, James, and now this.
The admin is just filing these lawsuits with the intent to inconvenience and intimidate, they aren't even putting in the bare minimum effort to actually argue the (non-existent) case
No wonder DOJ prosecutors are fleeing at historic levels

>>1488207
Grand juries get testimony and evidence, but it's only the stuff the prosecutors want them to see, and it's to a "more likely than not that this person took this action" standard, with no concern for motive. "Is it more likely than not that this man drove 40 mph over the speed limit and hit that girl crossing the street, given that you've seen this camera footage of the event and the testimony of the responding officer who saw him behind the wheel?" "Is it more likely than not this man was transporting thirty pounds of cocaine, given that you've seen the body cam footage of him being pulled over and this lab report saying those bricks of powder in the trunk are cocaine?", etc. It should be very easy for prosecutors to do if they've actually got a case to make.

>>1488165
If you mean that a grand jury is SHOWN some evidence, then yes, that's correct, they are shown enough evidence to make a decision on whether whatever charges they're being asked to indict on have a chance of succeeding. The bar to clear is EXTREMELY low.

Unfortunately we don't know what charges they tried for, that hasn't been released, but given the failure to indict, it would seem they didn't show anything even remotely convincing. I'm extremely curious what charges they even tried to indict them for, I can't think of any that wouldn't be laughed out of any court that isn't owned by the GOP

>>1488117
The problem with juries is that they're selected from your peers, which means the outcome of a Grand Jury depends on the political climate.

A progressive democratic jury isn't going to indict democratic lawmakers because, as evidenced by Charlie Kirk, they think it's totally fine to commit violence against people that have contrary political opinions.

The really fucked up thing with Trump versus Democratic lawmakers is that Trump hasn't doesn't anything different from what Obama did back in the day. But because Trump is Trump Democrats are openly in favor of insurrection now.

>>1488247
Theres no defense at these Grand Jurys either, right? So its just Trumps DOJ critter presenting only evidence that they think looks good to convince the jury members they selected that a crime occurred and a real trial needs to go forward
How sad is it that they can't even get a win like that?
Almost as sad as the coping going around that Dems don't have these setbacks, probably because they prosecute actual crimes without political bias, which is completely anathema to these retarded shills

>>1488265
Very sad, the saying used to be "I can indict a ham sandwich", but this administration can't even do that. The grand jury returned a no verdict on the guy who threw a sandwich at ICE.

>>1488046
Another reason why we should disband the courts and let Trump dispense justice. It’s clear that the law and constitution are wrong if they contradict the POTUS

>>1488265
Yes, my understanding is that there's no defense, just prosecution presenting evidence to convince the jury that the case has enough merit to go to trial. In these cases they've failed to even convince the jury that a crime MIGHT have taken place.

>>1488262
Grand juries still have jury selection. If you are going to insist that this is just a case of juries declining to indict despite sufficient evidence, then they should have had an easy time in jury selection weeding out the scary Democrat activists before presenting their case. Unless you ALSO think that the entire selection pool was biased and wouldn't indict, in which case it sure seems like the people have spoken.

I know you're a shill desperately trying to give the appearance of public support for the Trump administration's attempts to go after their enemies, but I'd love to hear what crime you think was committed for them to be indicted, and what evidence you think would justify their indictment for that crime.

>>1488337
>Unless you ALSO think that the entire selection pool was biased and wouldn't indict, in which case it sure seems like the people have spoken.
Yeah retard, that was my point. Pulling jurors from one of the most heavily blue parts of the US and expecting impartiality is retarded.

The only thing this refusal indicates is that democrat jurors are willing to support democrat leaders that encourage violent insurrection. Which we already knew. They collaborate and lie on shit they think is morally correct, even if it includes blatantly inciting violence, like Tim Walz did when he unequivocally threatened to use the national guard against ICE on national television.

If you're fine with that then you're a lost cause.

>>1488354
>Pulling jurors from one of the most heavily blue parts of the US and expecting impartiality is retarded.
>Republicans don't exist in blue states
You're literally just saying the only jury that's valid is one that does what the admin wants.

>>1488283
>t. Cultist

>>1488165
Exactly my point. If you can't get past that, you never should've even bothered showing up.

>>1488239
So it's not only cherry picked, it could be completely made up. Which is what trump did.

>>1488498
Well, that's the modern standard set by Democrats. I don;t think you can even be mad without being a hypocrite.

>>1488515
>Well, that's the modern standard set by Republicans
Fixed

>>1488357
No, just the ones that don't fucking lie under oath.