Lead: Two Justice Department special counsels — a former long‑time House Republican staffer and an associate of U.S. Attorney Jeannie Pirro — sought a grand jury indictment on Tuesday of six Democratic lawmakers over their appearance in a social‑media video advising service members and intelligence personnel about refusing illegal orders. The pair, identified as Carlton Davis and Steven Vandervelden, failed to persuade any juror that probable cause existed, and the grand jury returned a “no bill.” No career federal prosecutors were involved in the effort, marking a notable departure from Justice Department charging norms.
Key Takeaways
- Two front‑office special counsels in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C., Carlton Davis and Steven Vandervelden, sought indictments of six lawmakers on Tuesday; the grand jury returned no bill.
- The six targeted lawmakers include Reps. Jason Crow (CO), Maggie Goodlander (NH), Chris Deluzio (PA), Chrissy Houlahan (PA) and Sens. Mark Kelly (AZ) and Elissa Slotkin (MI).
- No career federal prosecutors participated in the matter; both prosecutors are listed as “special counsel” in Pirro’s D.C. office.
- Carlton Davis served as a Republican committee staffer for over a decade and had a brief 2018 stint as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.
- Steven Vandervelden spent 34 years as a local prosecutor in Westchester County, NY, and has a long professional association with Jeannie Pirro dating to her DA tenure.
- Pirro has publicly praised both men; her office has not said whether it will seek a new indictment and would need her explicit sign‑off to refile given the prior no‑bill finding.
- A federal judge separately ruled that the Pentagon’s attempt to punish Sen. Mark Kelly over the same video raised First Amendment concerns, describing the administration’s actions as an overreach.
- President Trump posted a separate, incendiary comment on Truth Social accusing the lawmakers of “seditious behavior, punishable by death,” escalating the political backdrop around the legal effort.
Background
The incident arises from a short social‑media video in which six lawmakers — each with prior military or intelligence service — urged members of the armed forces and intelligence communities not to follow unlawful orders. The video prompted administrative reactions inside the Pentagon and a public debate about the boundaries between military discipline and constitutional protections. In response to the video, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. pursued a grand jury presentation seeking to indict the speakers, but the panel declined to return indictments.
Justice Department charging policy normally limits prosecutions to matters where prosecutors believe admissible evidence will likely produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and where cases are vetted by career attorneys. The D.C. matter was handled by two special counsels in the U.S. Attorney’s Office front office, rather than by a team of career federal prosecutors — a deviation critics flagged as unusual. Jeannie Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for D.C., supervises the front‑office team and would have direct authority over any renewed push to file charges.
Main Event
On Tuesday, special counsels Carlton Davis and Steven Vandervelden presented evidence and arguments to a federal grand jury seeking indictments of six sitting lawmakers for their roles in the social‑media video. The prosecutors argued that the content amounted to criminal conduct tied to encouraging insubordination; jurors were asked to assess whether probable cause existed to charge the lawmakers. After deliberation, the grand jury did not return any indictment — commonly described as a “no bill” — meaning jurors were unconvinced that probable cause was met.
Officials familiar with the case told reporters that Davis and Vandervelden are listed as special counsel in Pirro’s office and operate in the front office alongside Pirro and other top aides. Davis’s prior work includes more than a decade as a Republican committee staffer on high‑profile House panels; he also worked briefly as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia in 2018. Vandervelden’s résumé includes 34 years as a Westchester County prosecutor and past professional ties to Pirro during her tenure as a district attorney.
Pirro issued a statement praising both prosecutors’ experience and work, noting Davis’s government investigative background and describing Vandervelden as one of the best prosecutors she has known in over three decades. The statement also downplayed attention to personal pursuits — a reference to reporting that Vandervelden has taken photographs of dance events — with Pirro noting, “everybody has a hobby.” The U.S. Attorney’s Office has not said whether it will present the matter to another grand jury; under DOJ practice, Pirro would need to authorize any renewed filing after a no‑bill.
Analysis & Implications
The decision by the grand jury to return a no bill underlines the high threshold for federal indictments and the independent role grand jurors play in assessing probable cause. Grand juries are not tasked with determining guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but jurors must nevertheless be persuaded that a reasonable basis exists for charges. The outcome suggests that, at least at the charging stage, jurors did not find the presented evidence and legal theory sufficient to meet that standard.
The absence of career prosecutors on the presentation has political and institutional implications. DOJ norms typically route sensitive or politically charged matters through senior career attorneys to ensure legal sufficiency and independence; using front‑office special counsels exclusively can fuel perceptions of politicization even when the office asserts experience and competence. That perception may shape congressional oversight and public reaction regardless of legal merit.
Legally, a no‑bill does not preclude future filings if new, admissible evidence emerges, but DOJ policy and internal checks make re‑filing after a grand jury rejection uncommon without significant developments. Politically, the episode amplifies tensions between elected officials, the Justice Department, and the executive branch: incendiary public comments — including President Trump’s Truth Social post calling the remarks “seditious” and punishable by death — escalate risks of retaliation and raise questions about rhetorical boundaries in charged cases.
Comparison & Data
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Lawmakers targeted | 6 |
| Grand jurors persuaded | 0 (“no bill”) |
| Special counsels presenting | 2 (Davis, Vandervelden) |
| Career federal prosecutors involved | 0 |
| Vandervelden prosecutorial tenure | 34 years (Westchester County) |
| Davis Hill staff experience | Over a decade on Republican House committees |
The simple table shows the contrast between the number of lawmakers the office sought to charge and the grand jury outcome. It also highlights staffing choices: two special counsels led the presentation with no career prosecutors on the podium. Those two factors — the no‑bill and the choice of presenters — will likely feature in future oversight or internal DOJ reviews.
Reactions & Quotes
Officials inside Pirro’s office publicly defended the two prosecutors, framing the effort as grounded in professional experience even as the grand jury declined to indict. Reporters noted the different reactions from political figures and legal observers.
Carlton Davis has been an investigator at the highest levels of our government.
Jeannie Pirro, U.S. Attorney (statement)
Pirro’s praise emphasized Davis’s investigative background and Vandervelden’s long prosecutorial record, positioning the presentation as meriting professional respect despite the grand jury’s decision. The office declined to confirm whether it will present new evidence to another grand jury.
SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!
Donald J. Trump (Truth Social post)
President Trump’s post intensified public attention and prompted legal observers to emphasize First Amendment and due‑process considerations. Separately, a federal judge found that the Pentagon’s effort to discipline Sen. Mark Kelly raised constitutional concerns, a decision that complicates any claim of criminality based solely on the video.
Unconfirmed
- Whether Pirro’s office will present new or additional evidence to a different grand jury is not yet confirmed.
- The internal rationale for not involving career federal prosecutors in the presentation has not been publicly detailed.
- The extent to which political considerations influenced the decision to bring the matter to a grand jury remains unverified.
Bottom Line
The grand jury’s no‑bill outcome underscores the legal protections afforded at the charging stage and highlights the independence of jurors in assessing probable cause. Although two experienced front‑office special counsels pushed the case, jurors were not persuaded that charges were warranted, and the absence of career prosecutors in the presentation has raised institutional questions about process and perception.
Going forward, the most consequential questions are whether Pirro will authorize a new filing and whether additional admissible evidence emerges. Separately, the episode has already produced political fallout — including an inflammatory post by the former president — and a federal judge’s finding that Pentagon discipline efforts implicated First Amendment concerns, both of which complicate any renewed prosecutorial path.