ExploreRead
Turning Law Enforcement on Opponents
Political Prosecutions

Trump Demanded Six Lawmakers' Arrest and Pressured Prosecutors to Revive a Case They Found Meritless

Select a Section to Explore

Chapter 1 — Trump Demanded Prosecutions; Prosecutors and Courts Supplied Checks

Chapter 2 — Discretion Is a Defense; Political Pressure Is the Charge

1 · Trump Demanded Prosecutions; Prosecutors and Courts Supplied Checks

1 · Trump Demanded Prosecutions; Prosecutors and Courts Supplied Checks — select a subtopic

1.1 — Prosecutors Found No Crime; Trump Demanded the Case Back

1.2 — The Six Lawmakers: Arrest Demanded, Charges Rejected

1 · Trump Demanded Prosecutions; Prosecutors and Courts Supplied Checks
1.1 · Trump Demanded Prosecutions; Prosecutors and Courts Supplied Checks
Prosecutors Found No Crime; Trump Demanded the Case Back

After his prosecutors dropped a vandalism case against David Hearn, concluding no crime had occurred, Trump publicly urged them to reinstate it, pointing to Hearn's Democratic donations and lawyer, and said he had not decided whether to fire the U.S. Attorney. A judge barred the charge from returning, citing a unique risk of a meritless political prosecution.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources
[1]United States v. David C. Hearn, No. 2026 CF2 010237, Order (D.C. Superior Court, Edelman, J., Oct. 1, 2026), pp. 1-8, 14-26
[2]U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, "Meet the U.S. Attorney"
[3]171 Cong. Rec. H5787–H5789 (daily ed. Dec. 11, 2025) (text of H. Res. 939, question of the privileges of the House; motion to table agreed to) (govinfo)
1.2 · Trump Demanded Prosecutions; Prosecutors and Courts Supplied Checks
The Six Lawmakers: Arrest Demanded, Charges Rejected

Six Democratic lawmakers told service members they could refuse illegal orders; two days later Trump demanded their arrest and trial. CBS reported that prosecutors sought charges carrying up to ten years in prison and that its sources said the grand jury rejected them unanimously. Slotkin's office says the grand jury refused to indict all six.

171 Cong. Rec. H5787-H5789 (daily ed. Dec. 11, 2025), text of H. Res. 939

It's called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand--We won't have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET. President DJT.

President Donald J. Trump, social-media post reproduced in the Congressional Record · November 20, 2025

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources
[1]United States v. David C. Hearn, No. 2026 CF2 010237, Order (D.C. Superior Court, Edelman, J., Oct. 1, 2026), pp. 1-8, 14-26
[3]171 Cong. Rec. H5787–H5789 (daily ed. Dec. 11, 2025) (text of H. Res. 939, question of the privileges of the House; motion to table agreed to) (govinfo)
[4]Office of Sen. Elissa Slotkin, "WATCH: Slotkin Releases Video Statement Declining Interview with U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro" (Feb. 5, 2026)
[5]Office of Rep. Chris Deluzio, "Joint Statement from Lawmakers Deluzio, Slotkin, Kelly, Crow, Goodlander, and Houlahan" (Nov. 20, 2025)
[6]Office of Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Slotkin Statement on Watchdog Filing Complaint Against Jeanine Pirro After Failed Indictment (Aug. 25, 2026)
[7]Office of Sen. Lindsey Graham, "Graham Demands Answers from Democrats Calling for Members of the Military, Intel Community to 'Refuse Illegal Orders'" (Nov. 20, 2025)
[8]Office of Sen. Elissa Slotkin, "WATCH: Slotkin Statement on Inquiry From U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro" (Jan. 14, 2026)
[9]Sarah N. Lynch and Jennifer Jacobs, U.S. Attorney's Office drops effort to indict 6 Democratic lawmakers who posted video on illegal orders, sources say, CBS News (Feb. 24, 2026)
[10]Office of Sen. Elissa Slotkin, "ICYMI: Slotkin, Kelly Hold Press Conference on Failed Grand Jury Indictment" (Feb. 11, 2026)
[11]United States v. Thompson, 251 U.S. 407, 413–15 (1920) (Legal Information Institute)
[12]Office of Rep. Robert Garcia, "Congressman Robert Garcia Statement on Threats From Department of Justice Over Criticism of Elon Musk" (Feb. 20, 2025)
[13]U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Pardon Attorney, staff profile, "Pardon Attorney Edward R. Martin Jr." (updated May 30, 2025)
[14]Letter from ten Democratic senators to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, "Request for Disciplinary Investigation of Edward Robert Martin, Jr." (Mar. 6, 2025)
[15]Document submitted for the record, hearing of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, HMKP-119-JU00-20260203-SD022 (Feb. 3, 2026) (reproducing a Politico article)
[16]DOJ, Attorney General: Pamela J. Bondi, former Attorney General biography (updated May 28, 2026)

2 · Discretion Is a Defense; Political Pressure Is the Charge

2 · Discretion Is a Defense; Political Pressure Is the Charge — select a subtopic

2.1 — The Authority Is Real, and So Are Its Limits

2.2 — The Charge

2 · Discretion Is a Defense; Political Pressure Is the Charge
2.1 · Discretion Is a Defense; Political Pressure Is the Charge
The Authority Is Real, and So Are Its Limits

Prosecutors have broad discretion, but constitutional rights and Department policy limit its use against political activity. The Supreme Court gave Trump absolute criminal immunity for the alleged Justice Department discussions, even when an improper purpose was alleged. Hearn's prosecutors corrected course; Trump's demand to revive the case continued. Congress's separate impeachment question is whether that use of power abused public trust.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources
[1]United States v. David C. Hearn, No. 2026 CF2 010237, Order (D.C. Superior Court, Edelman, J., Oct. 1, 2026), pp. 1-8, 14-26
[11]United States v. Thompson, 251 U.S. 407, 413–15 (1920) (Legal Information Institute)
[17]United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464, 463 (1996) (Legal Information Institute)
[18]Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978) (Legal Information Institute)
[19]Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985) (Legal Information Institute)
[20]28 U.S.C. § 541 — United States attorneys (Legal Information Institute)
[21]28 U.S.C. § 519 — Supervision of litigation (Legal Information Institute)
[22]United States v. Fokker Services B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 737 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (govinfo)
[23]Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) (slip opinion, syllabus and opinion of the Court)
[24]U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.000, Principles of Federal Prosecution, § 9-27.260 (Impermissible Considerations)
[25]The Federalist No. 65 (Alexander Hamilton) (Avalon Project, Yale Law School)
[26]Constitution Annotated, "Early Twentieth Century Impeachment Practices" (U.S. Const. art. II, § 4) (Cornell LII mirror)
[27]United States Senate, "The Impeachment Trial of Samuel Chase, 1804-05" (senate.gov)
2.2 · Discretion Is a Defense; Political Pressure Is the Charge
The Charge

Trump publicly demanded criminal punishment for people he named. The charge is that he used prosecution as pressure against political opponents, including after his own prosecutors concluded no crime occurred. A grand jury and a judge stopped the cases, but his targets had already faced investigation, public accusation or the risk of renewed charges.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources
[1]United States v. David C. Hearn, No. 2026 CF2 010237, Order (D.C. Superior Court, Edelman, J., Oct. 1, 2026), pp. 1-8, 14-26
[3]171 Cong. Rec. H5787–H5789 (daily ed. Dec. 11, 2025) (text of H. Res. 939, question of the privileges of the House; motion to table agreed to) (govinfo)
[6]Office of Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Slotkin Statement on Watchdog Filing Complaint Against Jeanine Pirro After Failed Indictment (Aug. 25, 2026)
[8]Office of Sen. Elissa Slotkin, "WATCH: Slotkin Statement on Inquiry From U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro" (Jan. 14, 2026)
[25]The Federalist No. 65 (Alexander Hamilton) (Avalon Project, Yale Law School)

Full Source Index

Full Source Index — 27 Sources

Primary Sources

Secondary Sources

Source Index