“Abso-fu**ng-lutely NOT!” Justice Department gets SHUT DOWN in court

The Department of Justice, under the leadership of Janine Piro (US Attorney for D.C.) and Pam Bondi, attempted to secure felony indictments against six members of Congress, including Senators Kelly and Slotkin. The alleged 'crime' was creating a public service announcement video reminding military members of their duty to disobey unlawful orders, a principle taught in military training and codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This action was reportedly instigated by Donald Trump, who labeled the statements as sedition.

Host Brian Tyler Cohen and guest Glenn (former federal prosecutor) discuss the DOJ's actions and the grand jury's response. Glenn states, 'they actually just tried to indict six members of Congress who committed no crimes' (0:31) and 'Donald Trump said, 'I want them prosecuted. They committed sedition.'' (3:21)

A grand jury in Washington D.C., composed of ordinary citizens, unanimously rejected the DOJ's request for felony indictments against the members of Congress. The guest frames this as the grand jurors acting as the 'conscience of the community' and a 'firewall' against gross prosecutorial abuse.

Glenn states, 'the grand jurors took one look at that request to indict these six members of Congress and said, 'Abso f***ing-lutely not. No. Go away, Janine.'' (4:08) and 'the grand jury is standing up for the rule of law' (4:50).

Prosecutors who engage in actions outside the scope of their official duties, such as attempting to indict innocent individuals at the behest of a vindictive president, lose their governmental immunity. They can face personal civil lawsuits for millions of dollars for civil rights violations and be referred to their state bar councils for disbarment due to gross abuse of power and ethical misconduct.

Glenn states, 'it was never within the scope of my official duties to prosecute the innocent based on a request by a vindictive president.' (6:59) and 'I hope to hell these six members of Congress will sue them for violations of their civil rights' (7:28). He also suggests, 'refer them to their state bar council so they can be disbarred' (7:59).

Presidential pardons are narrowly applied, exclusively covering federal criminal prosecutions. They do not extend to state court prosecutions, civil lawsuits seeking financial and reputational damages, or professional disciplinary actions such as disbarment by state bar associations.

Glenn explains, 'presidential pardons apply really only in one place... They only apply to federal criminal prosecutions.' (8:57) and 'No presidential pardon applies to that kind of a civil lawsuit. No presidential pardon applies to somebody like for example Rudy Giuliani... who was disbarred in New York' (9:36).

Members of Congress are protected by the First Amendment's free speech rights and the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution. These protections shield them from prosecution for statements made in furtherance of their official duties, making it legally impossible to successfully prosecute them for sharing information like the duty to disobey unlawful orders.

Glenn states, 'that is a gross violation of the First Amendment free speech rights. It's probably a violation of the speech or debate clause, which protects members of Congress for saying things like this in furtherance of their work' (6:26) and 'the case would be dismissed based on speech or debate clause protection' (16:22).