Jeanine Pirro signals DEFEAT in stunning concession

You're watching the Legal Breakdown. Glenn, we have got an abject humiliation. for one of Donald Trump's top foot. soldiers. That's Judge Jeanine Jeanine. Pirro, the US Attorney for the. Washington, D.C. office. Can you explain. what just happened at the hands of. Jeanine Pirro? Yeah, Brian. Um Trump flunky Jeanine. Pirro has decided to abandon her efforts. to prosecute the innocent. I mean, we. all saw the reporting not that long ago. that she sent somebody into the grand. jury in Washington, D.C. seeking felony.

indictments of six members of Congress, two senators, four representatives, even. though they had committed no crime. These are all military veterans or. veterans of our intelligence. communities, and they said, accurately, truthfully, and in accordance with. military law that military members are. obligated to disobey unlawful orders. Black letter military law, right there.

Take it from this old Army JAG. And. somehow, someway, Donald Trump convinced. Jeanine Pirro to go into the grand jury. and try to indict them for what? Treason. or sedition? We don't know exactly what. the proposed charges are. The problem is. the prosecutors didn't know what the. proposed charges were, either. But mind. you, these are offenses potentially. punishable by death. So, she sent a. prosecutor in to try to obtain. indictments in a potential death penalty.

case even though no crimes had been. committed. Brian, you cannot make this. up. No Hollywood script writer could. come up with this. Well, now the new. reporting is after the grand jurors, sitting as the conscience of the. community, this not only did they not. indict these six members of Congress, the vote was zero. Zero grand jurors. voted in favor of an indictment. Let me. tell you I've never heard of that. happening. Well, now the reporting is.

Jeanine Pirro has quote shelved her. quest to indict the innocent, to. prosecute people who had committed no. crimes, and it looks like this. investigation may now be dead. There's. no guarantee that she can't try again at. some point, but this is a good. development for the rule of law, and we. can talk in a few minutes about how I. perceive this not so much as a failure. of Trump and his dirty DOJ leadership,

but as a defeat at the hands of We the. People sitting in the grand jury as the. conscience of the community. Glen, if I. remember correctly, Senator Mark Kelly. had actually brought a lawsuit against. Pete Hegseth for uh the fact that. Hegseth was part of this whole a charade. against these Democratic lawmakers and. members of Congress. What happens to. that lawsuit now? Does that become moot, or is there still grounds to move. forward with that lawsuit because these. Democrats were the were the targets of. these vindictive prosecution attempts.

anyway? Yeah, Brian, great question. So, for a minute, I'm going to mix civil. apples with criminal oranges. What do I. mean by that? So, this was a criminal. indictment that they sought against. these six members of Congress who had. committed no crime. Um the Senator Mark. Kelly piece, and there's overlap because. he was one of the senators that they. tried to criminally indict. Um the the. military, the Department of Defense, Pete Hegseth tried to punish him also. for making these same truthful, accurate. statements about military law requiring.

soldiers, sailors, airmen, seamen to um. to disobey unlawful orders. He brought a. civil suit against Hegseth to put a stop. to Hegseth's attempt to punish him for. that speech by busting him down in rank. and basically stealing some of his. retirement pay. That case went to court. There were some preliminary arguments. and a hearing held and one day after the. grand jury refused to indict Senator.

Kelly and the other five members of. Congress in a civil case, a judge ruled. that Pete Hegseth violated the. Constitution by trying to punish Senator. Kelly for again speaking the truth. So. that was literally back-to-back defeats. of this attempt of the Trump. administration to punish members of. Congress of the opposite party, shocking, for speaking the truth. So um. it looks like now both of these things.

are resolved unless one, Jeanine Pirro. tries again contrary to today's. reporting to criminally indict them or. two, the Department of Defense Pete. Hegseth tries to appeal the judge. essentially ruling against Hegseth's. attempt to punish Senator Mark Kelly. So I want to talk about the impact that. this decision, um especially, you know, by these members of the community, not. one of whom uh voted in favor of.

indicting uh any of these Democrats. I. want to talk about the implications that. that's going to have on future efforts. by the Trump administration to engage in. these vindictive prosecutions. But first. I just want to give a quick note or. quick request to those who are watching. right now. If you'd like to support our. work as we continue to cover any and all. legal breaking news, the best way to do. that is to subscribe to both of our. channels. I'm going to put those links. in the post description of this video. So if you're not yet subscribed, it's. 100% free to subscribe, but it's a great. way to support us and our work. So you. can go ahead and hit those subscribe.

buttons. So Glenn, seeing that this. effort was completely unsuccessful by. the Trump administration, what kind of. an impact does that have moving forward. as the administration inevitably. attempts to engage in yet another. vindictive prosecution as they've been. so want to do for the past year? Oh, and. they inevitably will try again and. again, I fear. But, you know, this is a. great and important result writ large, and here's why. Even though this doesn't. count as precedent, what happens in a. grand jury with respect to whether they.

vote to indict or not, um is not. precedent in any other case or in any. other investigation, but it does show. that Donald Trump and his administration. have priors. They have priors trying to. vindictively prosecute indeed. vindictively indict people who have. committed no crime. And just as when. Senator Mark Kelly, um filed his civil. suit against Hegseth, you bet he raised. in that the fact that the Trump. administration was also trying to. vindictively criminally prosecute him,

not just pursue him civilly. So, Donald. Trump is is sort of racking up the. priors. You know, think criminal. history, you know, a a criminal record. as long as my arm. Well, that's what. Donald Trump is now establishing for. himself. And in every future potential. vindictive prosecution case or. investigation before the grand jury, the. target of those attempts by Trump will. undoubtedly have all of this evidence to. present to a court, including what just.

happened in Trump's efforts to indict. corruptly, criminally, notwithstanding. that they committed no crimes, indict. six members of Congress. So, all of this. couldn't be more valuable. And something. else I want to just jump in and add, Brian. You know, people are forever, myself included, talking about how. Donald Trump is failing. He's failing on. so many fronts. I don't see this as a. failure. So, you know, when I think of. Donald Trump failing, I think of his. health failing. I think of his mental.

faculties failing. We the people have no. impact on those failures. That's just. Donald Trump failing in various ways. But, when it comes to what's happening. in grand juries and in courtrooms, I see. that as we the people defeating Donald. Trump, his dirty DOJ leadership, including Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche, right down to Janine Pirro, the D.C. U.S. Attorney. The reason I view these. as defeats is because, you know, failing.

connotes or suggests kind of, you know, passivity. This is the people rising up. as the conscience of the community first. in the grand jury. When Donald Trump. tries to indict everybody from senators. to sandwich throwers, and literally over. and over and over and over and over. again and on and on, grand jurors. sitting as the conscience of the. community, we the people have stood up. and said, "Hell, no. There's no evidence. of crime, or if there is, you don't have. probable cause. You can't meet your.

evidentiary burden for us to return an. indictment." Brian, that is we the. people defeating Trump's dirty DOJ. leadership. Similarly, when Janine Pirro. fumbles forward, when she can't get. felony indictments, for example, you. know, for the the guy who threw the. sandwich at a police officer, or the. woman who kind of stepped in between. some law enforcement, some immigration. officers and somebody they were trying. to detain, and they tried to indict her.

for a felony, the the grand jury said, "Oh, hell no." She fumbles forward and. tries to charge them with low-level. misdemeanor crimes, which does not. require a grand jury indictment, only. felonies do. Janine Pirro can simply. sign a criminal complaint and charge. somebody with a misdemeanor and take. them to trial. When she's tried to do. that repeatedly, what happens? Well, now, it's the trial jurors standing up. as the conscience of the community, representing we the people, and finding.

them not guilty in a D.C. minute. So, listen, in in so many ways, and not just. in courts and in courts of public. opinion and in the polls and in marches. and protests and rallies assembling to. petition our government for a redress of. grievances and we got us some grievances. against our government. We the people. are defeating Donald Trump. He's not. just failing, we are defeating him. Glenn, I'm I'm particularly focused on.

Jeanine Pirro's involvement in all of. this. I don't think it's a stretch to. say that she abused her position by. trying to criminally prosecute. members of Congress for repeating what. is in the Uniform Code of Military. Justice in plain text black and white. And so is there are there any sanctions. that she would have to shoulder? Like is. there is there any recourse here when. you have somebody who is a US attorney. who is not using their position. to follow the the law but rather using.

their position to abuse it. Like what. about Jeanine Pirro's culpability in all. of this? Are you just supposed to sit. idly by while somebody with a ton of. power gets to just wield it to hurt. Democrats for the crime of being. Democrats? Ryan, there are at least two and. potentially three viable sanctions. One, she abused her official duties as a. prosecutor. It is so far beyond the. official duties of a US attorney or any. federal prosecutor to try to indict the.

innocent. That subjects her to personal. legal liability. So, absolutely these. six members of Congress could bring a. lawsuit in her personal capacity cuz she. is not cloaked with the protection of. immunity sovereign immunity as a. a government officer if she acts beyond. her the scope of her official duties, which she did. They could sue her and I. suspect they would have a robust and.

potentially winning case. Second uh. possibility, she can and should be. referred to bar council. And she should. go the way of Trump's other lawyers who. end up being disbarred for misconduct in. office, misconduct that was undertaken. either at the request of or for the. benefit of Donald Trump. And then three, and this might be the outlier, but I. never want to forego the possibility of. criminal [snorts] culpability. She has. engaged in a conspiracy against rights.

What is that? If you try to do. something, if you abuse your official. power to try to deprive somebody of a. constitutional right, like the Fourth. Amendment right to be free from. unreasonable seizures, or the Fifth. Amendment right to due process of law, both of which arguably are violated when. you try to prosecute the innocent, somebody who has committed no crime, I. think she potentially subjects herself. to criminal liability. And when the rule.

of law comes back into the light of day, we have a legitimate um not just US. attorney for the District of Columbia, but attorney general and president in. the Oval Office who actually respect the. law and the Constitution, there needs to. be a criminal investigation launched. against Jeanine Pirro. I want to finish on that point. Do you. think. that. the Democrats, if we are lucky enough to. take control ever again, have the. stomach to do it? And what do you say to.

the subsequent attorney general uh who. has to make that decision to, you know, do what Democrats always do, which is. just move forward in deference to. healing the country, or try and seek. some accountability for people who have. abused their positions so that there is. some deterrent effect for the next. person who tries to come in and abuse. their position like Jeanine Pirro's. doing here? Brian, if our nation's leadership, particularly law enforcement leadership, again declines to seek accountability.

for those who have committed crimes. against the American people and in. violation of our constitution, then frankly, we don't deserve to keep. our republic. We tried it as far back as. 1974 when Richard Nixon committed all. kinds of crimes against the American. people and we decided that we were just. going to put the long national nightmare. behind us by declining. to hold the criminal president. accountable for his crimes. We did it. again after Donald Trump launched an.

attack on not just the US capital, but. on the democratic process, tried to. invalidate the expressed will of the. American voters and deny Joe Biden his. election win and you know, steal the. power of the presidency for himself. We. had an attorney general in Merrick. Garland who just decided we really need. to just put it all behind us and didn't. pursue accountability for Trump's crimes. until virtually the last minute when it. was too late. Jack Smith, once he. appointed him as special counsel, went.

gangbusters aggressively, appropriately. so in the direction of accountability, but it was far too little, too late. Brian, if we choose the same path of no. accountability, we don't deserve to keep. our republic and I fear we won't keep. our republic. All right. Well, that is a. a message loud and clear to the people. who come next in terms of what their. priorities should be and and look, I. think you know, you and I have spoken. about this at length, but I think. Merrick Garland gave the blueprint of. what not to do and the world that we're.

living in right now is a testament to. exactly that. And I know there going to. be people who who are upset that that, you know, the the focus that I'm talking. about Merrick Garland, but the reality. is Donald Trump. unhinged like emboldened does not happen. if Merrick Garland takes a stronger. approach, which he didn't do and now. look at the. look at the results of of that inaction. So, again, that that message loud and clear. I think is is exactly the kind of. message that needs to be amplified.

Again, for those who are watching right. now, if you'd like to help elevate our. voices in this ecosystem and see more. legal news as it continues to break, the. best way to do that is to subscribe to. both of our channels. I'm going to put. those links right here on the screen and. also in the post description of this. video. 100% free to subscribe, but a. great way to support our work. I'm Brian. Tyler Cohen. And I'm Glenn Kirschner. You're watching the Legal Breakdown. >> [music].