Name: Report: U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro applied pressure to indict Democratic lawmakers over video
Uploaded: 2026-02-21T23:01:52.000Z
Duration: 7 min 58 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

Relative clauses (Restrictive vs. nonrestrictive)

There's brand new reporting in the New York Times this afternoon about the turmoil inside the Department of Justice when it came to that failed attempt to indict six Democratic lawmakers who released a video reminding the men and women of the military that they do not have to obey any illegal orders.

Advanced passive voice

According to that reporting in the New York Times in mid January, the inquiry into the lawmakers had no sense of urgency and that when lawyers for the lawmakers were contacted by federal prosecutors, they were told that they were not told of any law that had been broken, according to six people familiar with the matter.

Times goes on to report that everything changed two weeks later when, quote, Jeanine Pirro abruptly instructed her team to seek an indictment of the lawmakers.

Her prosecutors then faced a decision that many in the department under Trump have confronted.

That attempt to indict, of course, failed last week, but

as the New York Times notes, it stood, quote, as an example of the chaos that has voiled the department as it has grappled with the president's increasingly erratic demands, even in the face of little evidence.

I want to bring in New York Times investigative reporter Mike Smith, who's bylined on that reporting we read from.

Also joining us, former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department, Mary McCord.

Mike, first take us through what you and your colleagues are reporting today.

Basically what we're trying to show is that when this investigation started, these prosecutors reached out to the defense lawyers for the six lawmakers and said, look, we're in the early stages.

We're not even sure if we're in the first inning yet.

We're not even sure what law we're investigating this under.

You know, could one of the lawmakers come in and talk, you know, would one of the lawyers want to come in and talk to sort of get this thing going?

That is as informal a way of starting an investigation as possible, especially after the president of the United States has called for them, you know, essentially called for them to be investigated for this and raised the possibility that it could be punished.

You know, up, you know, up to, you know, seditious conspiracy, seditious conspiracy and execution.

So it had a very, very informal feeling to it.

And within two weeks, they there was a prosecutors before a grand jury trying to indict them like that is just such a highly unusual, irregular, you know, way for a department to operate, especially on political, you know, opponents of the president and appointees.

And like, look, we're beyond, obviously, the point of trying to compare this to previous Justice Departments.

But the idea, like a previous Justice Department looking at a member of Congress, there'd be all sorts of memos and back and forth up and down the chain about what to do and, you know, how would this survive on appeal and what, you know, what are the Article 1, you know, issues here and such.

Eleven secret hearings before Judge Beryl Howell about the crime fraud.

I mean, to your point about how this should be special, I guess my question to you is if you compare it to Eric Adams case, when that was brought to very conservative prosecutors in The New York U.S.

Danielle Sassoon basically told Emil Bovet to shove it where the sun does not shine.

Or is there no one left like Danielle Sassoon?

These prosecutors went and tried to bring a case before aggression.

They tried to indict the six officers they tried to indict, just to do it slowly.

It's not that they tried to do it slowly.

We know as much as we wrote today, which was that, you know, Judge Jeanine told the prosecutors to go and seek the indictment of it after the case had started in a very, very informal way.

So you're going from like 0 to not just 60 0, to like, you know, very, very, very fast.

And those prosecutors went in and the grand jury came back and swiftly said no, and

The thing that, I wonder in the evolution of the Trump Justice Department, is that instead of quitting, is this the next way just failing, of just failing, Just quiet quitting.

And, you know, a very prominent litigator, someone who has been opposing the government in court on a lot of this stuff, said to me that what they wonder on a lot of the things at Justice Department is their pocket vetoing going on.

Are prosecutors being told to do things and not doing them or tanking them?

And I'm not saying we have evidence in this case that they purposely went in to tank it.

But if you're a prosecutor and you have decided that you believe in the Trump Justice Department and you want to work there, is it easier to just go to the grand jury, seek the indictment, and

blame the rigged system than it is to stand up, say no and quit?

And it certainly seems like there was some sort of phone call made, a directive that either came directly from the White House or, or potentially from the Attorney general's or the deputy attorney general's office to Jeanine Pirro to speed this up.

But, you know, to Mike's point about prosecutors going, and

he can, he can please correct me if this is wrong, but

the reporting I have read were that the two prosecutors who went into the grand jury, these were not career prosecutors in the D.C.

One had been a longtime assistant district attorney in Westchester county up in Connecticut when Jeanine Pirro was there, and

she had worked with him and is now apparently a dance photographer.

Well, now I guess he's a special counsel to Jeanine Pirro.

And then another was a longtime Republican staffer who had almost no prosecutorial experience and also now is a special counsel to Jeanine Pirro, the U.S.

So this seems to me, unless that's wrong, like a case that was never really even given to the career prosecutors or was given to them, and

And so I do think that might have something to do with why these two were willing to go in on such a completely, not just baseless, but

it would be unconstitutional to indict these six members of Congress for conduct that is clearly protected by the First Amendment and as Mike said, raises serious speech or debate issues given their status as members of Congress.

And I would refer us all also to Judge Leon's decision in the case that Senator Kelly brought against Secretary Hegseth to try to prevent the demotion in rank and pay.

And Judge Leon, in no uncertain terms, said, this, you know, flagrantly violates the First Amendment.

And you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

And I'm glancing over to make sure I get the quote right.

So, you know, it's not just me saying this would be unconstitutional, but, you know, to try to retain that was, of course, not a criminal prosecution.

But still, this type of retaliation for First Amendment protected speech, especially by elected officials who are elected in order to speak on matters of policy.

I can't imagine a career prosecutor in that office taking to this to the grand jury.