Kelly simply spoke the truth. This administration cannot handle the truth. Nor can they understand it.
And the DOJ fails miserably yet again to even get an indictment against Kelly or the rest.
Showing, yet again, that the old myth about Grand Juries indicting a ham sandwich is false.
Either that, or my congressperson is not a ham sandwich.
WaPo says the Justice Department could try again. And I expect Trump will tell his people that failure to indict his enemies is unacceptable.
Does anyone know how hard it would be to get a change of venue to a grand jury in, say, Wyoming?
No, I was on one, and yes there is a spirit of consensus, but we voted down several. Sure more likely than not the People get their indictment- as there is little or no defense and it isnt “beyond any reasonable doubt” in fact the opposite- “Is there a reasonable chance this guy is guilty?”
However, some indictment requests are clearly political- as these were. And sometimes the DA doesnt even want a Indictment- he is just pressured into a GJ by public opinion. In both those cases, you rarely get a indictment.
A prosecutor can go back to a grand jury as many times as they want. There is no hard limit.
re: Venue. There is no venue, yet, so the prosecutor doesn’t need to ask/change venue. Venue is not really important until after the case is brought. The prosecutor can present the evidence to any grand jury anywhere. However, once a grand jury returns an indictment, in say Wyoming, then the prosecutor must bring the case in that district in Wyoming. And once lawsuit is brought, the defendant can get the charge dismissed if the venue is not improper (Wyoming has no connection to the crime committed).
That’s a dumb way to phrase how venue works, but I did it that way if the point was to just harass the Defendant and the Gov’t did not care too much if the charges would result in a guilty verdict. Depending on the charge, venue can be pretty flexible / you can make a plausible argument for lots of places.
Late: To be clear, in normal cases, venue can be appropriate in multiple places. So if a grand jury true bills in Wyoming, but the Judge thinks Texas is a more appropriate venue for, say, a mail fraud crime, then the Judge can transfer the case to Texas and the prosecutor would not need to redo the grand jury process in Texas. In the scenario I was talking about in the Mark Kelly video, I’m just assuming “Wyoming” meant absolutely no connection to reality/the crime/not a possible venue. In that case, dismissal is the remedy.
I said elsewhere, this case wasn’t even a ham sandwich. It was a day-old pile of ham sitting on a counter in a warm kitchen.
No one with any sense would have ever brought this case to the courts.
No kidding.
“Let’s prosecute these politicians for daring to say that people should follow the law and the Constitution.”
No… Let’s not.
I do not think what I am about to suggest is fair. But could they successfully argue that the intended audience was military members, and a lot of them are stationed in Wyoming?
If that won’t work, could a Trumper federal attorney claim that the six congresspersons were addressing military members from their home constituencies, and use grand juries there? I suppose that they still might get a no true bill in Arizona or Pennsylvania. So I’m just asking what we might soon see, not saying it would work for Trump.
Venue is generally proper where the crime occurred. The effects of the crime generally don’t matter.
For this conduct, assuming the crime was other people seeing the video, it would be proper where the video was made or uploaded to the internet (if different).
I’m guessing, but probably DC or their home States if that’s where the video was made and/or uploaded.
Having said that, with this type of “crime”, you can make plausible arguments for lots of places - several videos are recorded in different places, sent somewhere else, downloaded/uploaded from somewhere else, etc..
https://www.npr.org/2026/02/12/nx-s1-5698515/mark-kelly-pete-hegseth-lawsuit
Judge rules in favor of Kelly in his lawsuit against Hegseth. Maybe this will go to appeal, but right now Hegseth and DoD are barred from any punitive action against Kelly.
That’s great news. So as of now, DoD can’t strip Kelly of his retirement benefits nor any other administrative action they were in the process of doing until this lawsuit is over with (and DoD wins). Or appeal it (and DoD wins). Either way, it’ll be awhile, nor do I think DoD wins an appeal or this trial.
This is an interesting choice. Usually with this administration, every adverse decision goes to appeal, which seems generally to be what Trump wants. But I wonder if someone in his inner circle is smart enough to realize what a good candidate Kelly might make for the Dems in 2028, especially as a martyr to retaliation. In which case, it might be in their best interests to drop the case and let it slide into oblivion.
I wouldn’t be the rent on it, but I might put a few free dollars on “let it slide.”
“We will be announcing our next steps in punishing the traitorous Mark Kelly in two weeks.”
DOJ is abandoning the case.
God, these fuckers are so amateurish. Driving the most powerful nation on earth - right into the ground!
Thirteen days. Good call @kenobi_65 !
So close! 
Googling, I’m not finding that. Is it a paraphrase and do you have a source?