Ex-GOP staffer and Pirro aide tried, failed to indict Democrats over social media video

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: msn/NBC News

12h


The two Justice Department officials who tried and failed to convince a federal grand jury to indict six sitting members of Congress over their speech in a social media video are a former longtime House Republican staffer and an associate of U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeannie Pirro, two people familiar with the matter tell NBC News.

Carlton Davis and Steven Vandervelden are both listed as "special counsel" at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. They work in the front office along with Pirro and her principal assistant U.S. attorney, special counsels for policy and legislative affairs and director of external affairs. The pair sought to indict Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire and Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, and Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan on Tuesday.

As NBC News first reported, the duo was unable to convince a single grand juror that they met the low probable cause threshold to indict any of the six Democrats featured in a social media video advising members of the military and intelligence communities not to obey illegal orders. No career federal prosecutors were involved in the case, a sharp departure from Justice Department norms.

Bloomberg Law first reported on their identities. Pirro praised their work in a statement to NBC News. Over the course of more than a decade, Davis worked as a Republican staffer on several committees, including the House Select Committee on Benghazi. He worked under Rep. Darrell Issa of California, former Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, former Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Rep. James Comer of Kentucky.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ex-gop-staffer-and-pirro-aide-tried-failed-to-indict-democrats-over-social-media-video/ar-AA1WePrc

[cstanleytech]

1. Both of them should face disciplinary hearings for even trying to get an indictment.

[maxsolomon]

5. In this DOJ?

There is no accountability left. It's Trump's personal law firm.

[Javaman]

2. box wine fails again. nt

[ck4829]

3. Nice.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. Trump prosecutors were asked which law Democrats broke - and they couldn't name even one

Normally an indictment has to list the statutes on which the charges are based

President Donald Trump's alleged vengeance campaign against his political enemies has thus far flopped as his at times under-qualified loyalists fail to secure indictments, and new reports are emerging about the latest fiasco.

— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2026-02-18T20:01:18.853Z

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-prosecution-democratic-lawmakers

President Donald Trump's alleged vengeance campaign against his political enemies has thus far flopped as his at times under-qualified loyalists fail to secure indictments, and new reports are emerging about the latest fiasco.

Federal prosecutors failed to persuade a single grand jury member that there was probable cause to indict six Democratic lawmakers who produced a video reminding military service members they were duty-bound to disobey unlawful orders, and The New Republic's Greg Sargent reported that even prosecutors weren't sure what law they might have broken.

"Here’s what happened: After the FBI communicated with the Democratic lawmakers, prosecutors in Pirro’s office reached out to them to follow up," Sargent wrote. "Slotkin’s attorney, Preet Bharara, directly asked prosecutors what statute the Democrats had allegedly violated to prompt the criminal inquiry, according to sources familiar with these discussions. The prosecutors could not name any statute, the sources told me."

“'What is the theory of criminal liability?' is the question that was posed to the prosecutors, one source said, adding that 'no answer was forthcoming.'"

Prosecutors went forward in their attempt to indict the members of Congress without naming any violated statute, and Sargent said that it still hasn't been definitively confirmed what statue they used in their ultimately doomed grand jury hearing.

"The failure to name a relevant statute when directly asked to do so by the lawyers for the accused suggests prosecutors didn’t think a criminal prosecution was warranted or doubted there was probable cause to think the Democrats had committed a crime," Sargent wrote. "In fact, one source familiar with these discussions tells me the prosecutors’ general tone in them suggested they were making the sort of inquiry that normally comes at the very outset of the investigative process."

One of the sources said that prosecutors – neither of whom had much prior experience – seemed to be at the "very preliminary" stage in their investigation when they presented their evidence to a grand jury, and Sargent said that's a worrisome sign.

"For the DOJ to seek an indictment so soon after conversations like those suggests something or other prompted the rush to indict, perhaps a word from on high that — let’s go way out on a limb here — had little to do with facts and law," he wrote. "Legal experts tell me it’s odd for prosecutors to fail to state any theory of criminal liability and then attempt an indictment anyway so quickly."

[FakeNoose]

6. Oh my God, so many asshole names in one sentence!

He worked under Rep. Darrell Issa of California, former Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, former Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Rep. James Comer of Kentucky.

No wonder.....