If you were looking for a case study in how *not* to run a criminal investigation, the Trump-era Department of Justice might just serve as a prime example. Recently, a grand jury firmly rejected charges against six Democratic lawmakers who had produced a video advising military members to refuse illegal orders—a stance supported by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The case, which ended not with a bang, but with a whimper, was marked by a startling lack of clarity from the prosecutors involved. When the defense, led by former federal prosecutor Preet Bharara, inquired about the specific law the lawmakers were accused of breaking, the answer was met with silence. This foundational question of criminal liability, shockingly, remained unanswered.

This debacle was further illuminated by a no-bill from the grand jury so decisive that it failed to garner even a single vote for indictment. The legal community and observers were left astonished not by the grand jury's decision, but by the fact that the prosecution sought an indictment in the first place without being able to cite a specific statute.

Adding to the surreal nature of the proceedings, it was reported that Jeanine Pirro, who led the charge, had enlisted the help of two external prosecutors with minimal federal experience—one of whom was simultaneously managing a dance photography studio. This unusual choice did little to instill confidence in the seriousness with which the case was handled.

Legal experts, including law professor Stephen Vladeck, have suggested that these anomalies point to a lack of autonomy among the prosecutors, implying that higher forces within the DOJ might have been influencing the proceedings. This theory paints a troubling picture of a justice department more concerned with political spectacle than with upholding the law.

As the dust settles, the credibility of the DOJ under Trump's administration has been severely questioned. The inability to define the legal basis for prosecution, coupled with the inability to convince even a single juror, has led many to view this case as nothing short of a politically motivated witch hunt. This incident not only undermines public trust in legal institutions but also highlights the dangers of a politicized judiciary. The implications of this case will likely resonate as a cautionary tale about the vitally important separation between law and politics.