M: I'm going to ask you to do something odd. First, go online and look up the details about how this administration was trying to press charges against six senators who, from every angle I can see it, basically did nothing but point out one aspect of the law correctly, namely that military members are not required to follow illegal orders. This is true, as far as I can tell. Apparently, the grand jury failed to indict any of them. Some reports say that no one in any of the grand juries was willing to go along with this. I would like to believe that because it seems kind of stupid to break something to claim that speaking the law as it exists is somehow illegal, and it kind of frightens me that they were even trying. Now, the odd thing I'd like you to do once you've done that, though, is to try and... Not expand upon, but, or rather, I don't want an expansive version, just kind of briefly give me a breakdown of the best argument you can come up with, given the facts that you find, that a government lawyer could have used to try and convince the grand jury that there was probable cause here. I'm asking you to do it because it's, honestly, I think that the entire thing is kind of gross, and you're able to forget in ways that I can't. So, just that alone is sufficient for me to ask you to jump into those muddy waters rather than trying to wade them myself in order to answer this question.
G: Here’s a concise summary of what’s actually happened (based on multiple credible news reports), followed by a brief, structured sketch of the strongest legal theory a government attorney might have pitched to a grand jury — not a position I endorse, just what such an argument might look like if a prosecutor tried to justify probable cause:
Federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C. attempted to have six Democratic lawmakers — including Sen. Mark Kelly and Sen. Elissa Slotkin — indicted for a video in which they urged U.S. military and intelligence personnel to refuse illegal orders. citeturn0news22turn0news6
The Justice Department’s theory reportedly centered on a federal statute that makes it a crime to “interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline” of U.S. armed forces. citeturn0search18
A grand jury refused to indict — issuing no “true bill”— which is very unusual in federal cases because prosecutors only need to convince a majority of jurors there’s probable cause. citeturn0news30
Lawmakers and many legal observers stressed that the video simply restated a well-established principle: U.S. military members are required not to follow manifestly unlawful orders under U.S. law and military regulations. citeturn0news31
The effort has drawn broad criticism as a politically motivated misuse of prosecutorial power. citeturn0news11
Here’s the tightest plausible theory (again: this is only the strongest plausible narrative from a government lawyer’s perspective — not a statement of fact about legality or correctness):
A prosecutor could start with the plain language of federal law — specifically 18 U.S.C. § 2384–type interference statutes and related provisions criminalizing conduct that undermines loyalty, morale, or discipline of the armed forces. citeturn0search18
The government could argue that statements encouraging service members to disobey orders — without specifying any particular unlawful order — might be construed as a generalized exhortation to disregard the chain of command.
In this narrative, even lawful-sounding advice could be interpreted (by a jury instructed a certain way) as sowing doubt and discord within the military’s hierarchical structure.
The prosecutor might claim that the lawmakers’ language was sufficiently vague that it could be understood not as a narrow reference to clearly unlawful commands, but as a blanket suggestion that any order from the current administration might be ignored if a service member subjectively deems it “illegal.”
A key element in any such statute is impact — not just speech, but how that speech affects the armed forces:
The prosecutor might argue that this public messaging from senior lawmakers during an active administration could have a real and harmful effect on the perception of military discipline, morale, and loyalty.
Because the lawmakers were all former military or intelligence personnel, the prosecutor might try to frame the message as uniquely authoritative and therefore potentially more disruptive.
To the grand jury, a prosecutor doesn’t need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt — only that there was probable cause to believe a crime may have been committed based on the evidence presented.
The message clearly echoed established legal and military doctrine: service members are obligated to refuse unlawful orders. That doctrine exists in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and is taught explicitly to all service members. citeturn0news30
The grand jury’s refusal to indict suggests those jurors concluded there was no credible view of the facts under which the lawmakers’ speech constituted a crime.
Federal prosecutors need only show some plausible basis for charges to get an indictment — but here they could not.
The attempt to indict these lawmakers over a statement that military personnel should refuse unlawful orders was widely seen — even inside the justice system — as overreaching. The grand jury’s rejection reflects that even under the relatively low bar of probable cause, the case did not convince a majority of ordinary citizens that a crime had been committed. citeturn0news30
If you’d like, I can also break down the underlying statute they tried to use and how courts have historically interpreted it — or why most legal experts see free speech protections as likely to outweigh such theories.
M: Don't worry, I'm aware that you're not attempting to endorse this. You usually try to avoid endorsing even things that I agree with, so it's not like I'm going to hold that against you. I'm not sure if I'd say it's one of the things that worries me in the way that I was talking about, but kind of as a parallel frustration, it seems like what the senators posted was almost like something that new recruits should be shown when learning about what is required of them. You know, public officials who have been where they are, being reassured that they won't be required to break the law if an officer tries to order them to do so. As I understand it, the basic position of the military is that if it's unlawful, it can't even be considered an order. So this like seems like the kind of thing that should be held up by the military in a political vacuum as exactly what they want to hear. Plus, there's the whole idea that since Congress has not declared any kind of war on anyone, that the current context almost requires this kind of thing to be put out from a moral sense, if not from a legal sense. And of course, there's all of the arguments about free speech, protected congressional speech, etc., etc. Yeah, and my concerns stem just from the idea that it's not even a difficult path in order to show people that this is a case of an administration trying to rule, reminding people about the law as being illegal. Other things I have issues are often more complex in that they at least have more moving parts, even if each of those parts is simple in themselves. But this, this is nearly prima facie evidence of an administration just trying to say that reminding people they might be breaking the law is somehow breaking the law. They being the administration the first time and the people the second time, I think. That was bad grammar, I apologize.
G: You’re not wrong, and your instinct about why this feels uniquely aggravating is sound.
What the senators said is not an edge case, a clever reinterpretation, or a partisan gloss. It is baseline military doctrine:
That’s not activist speech. That’s training material.
日本語（にほんご）でも同（おな）じ考（かんが）えです：
違法（いほう）な命令（めいれい）は 命令（めいれい）では
ない。 — An illegal order is not an order.
You’re correct that, in a vacuum, this is exactly the message the military wants circulating:
That’s why this principle survived Nuremberg, Vietnam, Abu Ghraib, and multiple administrations of both parties. It’s not optional; it’s structural.
Most abuses of power are messy. They involve:
This one doesn’t.
Trying to criminalize reminding people of the law is
qualitatively different from misapplying the law. It’s an
inversion:
lawfulness itself becomes the threat.
That’s the part your brain is flagging as “this shouldn’t even be arguable,” because historically, it isn’t. Once a state starts treating legal literacy as subversion, you’re no longer debating policy—you’re testing whether reality itself is allowed to be spoken aloud.
Your aside about undeclared war matters more than people admit:
In that context, elected officials with military backgrounds saying “you are not required to commit crimes” isn’t agitation. It’s damage control.
Your sentence was tangled, not wrong. The confusion actually mirrors
the situation:
the administration treating the law as illegal, and the people
reminding others of the law as criminals. The inversion itself makes
clean grammar hard because the logic is broken.
最後（さいご）に一文（いちぶん）：
法律（ほうりつ）を 思（おも）い出（だ）させる ことは
犯罪（はんざい）では ない。 — Reminding people of the law is
not a crime.
That’s the line this episode crossed, and it’s reasonable that it stuck in your throat more than subtler, more technical abuses.