Transcript

🚨 Trump gets RUDE AWAKENING from GRAND JURY

From MeidasTouch · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 14 min · 2,323 words · 33 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "🚨 Trump gets RUDE AWAKENING from GRAND JURY", an episode of MeidasTouch published February 11, 2026 (14 min, about 2,323 words). It mentions 15 people, works and ideas, including Donald Trump, Department of Justice, Senator Mark Kelly, Alyssa Slotkin, First Amendment.

What this episode is about

A grand jury has rejected the Department of Justice's attempts to indict political critics of Donald Trump, including members of Congress involved in a video urging military personnel to resist illegal orders. This decision marks a significant shift in the judiciary's stance, with numerous grand juries across the country pushing back against what they perceive as lawless actions by the Trump administration, highlighting a growing skepticism towards the DOJ's integrity.

Key takeaways

  • Grand juries are becoming unlikely guardians of democracy, standing against the politicization of justice.
  • The DOJ is facing a credibility crisis, with a historic rejection of high-profile indictments raising eyebrows nationwide.
  • Trump's threats reveal a fragility in his power; grand juries' rebuffs signal a strained legal battlefield.
  • Senators Kelly and Slotkin are resisting censorship, showcasing a remarkable commitment to upholding constitutional values.
  • The clash of military oaths and political orders highlights the fine line between duty and dissent in democracy.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 3:00: Donald Trump, Department of Justice, Senator Mark Kelly, Alyssa Slotkin
  2. – 6:00: Department of Justice, Donald Trump, Alyssa Slotkin, First Amendment
  3. – 9:00: First Amendment, Janine Piro, Donald Trump, Senator Mark Kelly
  4. – 12:00: Department of Justice, Donald Trump, Alyssa Slotkin, Janine Piro
  5. – 13:33: Legal AF, Department of Justice, Midas Touch

Notable quotes from "🚨 Trump gets RUDE AWAKENING from GRAND JURY"

  • Last night, a grand jury rejected yet again the Department of Justice and its attempts to indict the political critics of Donald Trump. The DC grand jury completely rebuff the attempts by the Department of Justice, US Attorney for.
    about Department of Justice · at
  • Conspiracy, and that George Washington would have hanged them. And right on Q, Pete Hgsith said that they were the sedistic six. The sedicious six, no less. And what does the grand jury do?
    about Pete Hegseth · at
  • Court and had a very good hearing last week in front of Judge Leon in the District of Colombia to stop Pete Het, the Department of Defense Secretary from censuring him as a…
    about Department of Defense · at
  • That didn't stop them. Mainly because the Department of Justice is scared of their boss, and I mean Donald Trump.
    about Donald Trump · at
  • Now, Mark Kelly speaking right after his hearing last week about not having his First Amendment speech chilled, not having his speech and debate privilege chilled.
    about Senator Mark Kelly · at
  • You know they're liberals. I don't know why they're not indicting. Here's here's Janine Piro complaining about why she's not getting grand juries to indict on her behalf. Play it.
    about Janine Piro · at
  • Attorney General Bondi and to the lead Department of Justice lawyer in DC, Janine Piro, telling them one, I will not be complying with their inquiries and sitting down for an…
    about Alyssa Slotkin · at
  • And my bar. So until my next report, you're here on Midas Touch, you're on Legal AF, hit the subscribe buttons for YouTube for both. Come over to Legal AF Substack as well.…
    about Legal AF · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Donald Trump — Person · Referenced political figure / alleged instigator · 7 mentions · first at
    Portrayed as the driving force behind DOJ efforts to indict political critics and as the person pressuring DOJ leadership.
  • Senator Mark Kelly — Person · Referenced senator / investigation target · 4 mentions · first at
    Described as one of the members of Congress targeted for indictment and as a plaintiff seeking to block alleged retaliation/censure tied to the video.
  • Alyssa Slotkin — Person · Referenced senator / organizer of the video / investigation target · 4 mentions · first at
    Presented as the Michigan senator who helped assemble the 'don’t give up the ship' video and refused DOJ interview requests tied to the investigation.
  • Janine Piro — Person · Referenced prosecutor / DOJ official in narrative · 6 mentions · first at
    Identified in the transcript as the U.S. Attorney for D.C. associated with the attempted indictments and the investigation into members of Congress.
  • Pete Hegseth — Person · Referenced administration official / critic of the lawmakers · 3 mentions · first at
    Depicted as labeling the lawmakers the 'seditious six' and as the official Mark Kelly sued to prevent alleged censure/retaliation.
  • Attorney General Pam Bondi — Person · Referenced government official / witness in oversight setting · 2 mentions · first at
    Introduced as facing sworn testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and referenced as 'Attorney General Bondi' receiving correspondence from Slotkin.
    Earlier today, I sent a letter to Attorney General Bondi and to the lead Department of Justice lawyer in DC, Janine Piro, telling them one, I will not be complying with their inquiries.
  • Leticia James — Person · Referenced state attorney general / alleged target of failed indictments · 1 mention · first at
    Cited as an example of DOJ attempts to secure indictments being rejected by grand juries, reinforcing the episode’s theme of grand-jury pushback.
    It's getting so bad for the Trump administration and Department of Justice that when they tried to go after Leticia James, the New York Attorney General, and get her indicted…

Companies & orgs

  • Department of Justice — Company · Key institution discussed · 10 mentions · first at
    Central to the discussion about legal and ethical issues within the Trump administration
  • Department of Defense — Company · Key institution discussed · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned in the context of censuring retired military personnel
  • Legal AF — Company · Business focus · 3 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as the platform where the discussion is taking place
  • Midas Touch — Company · Business focus · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as the platform where the discussion is taking place
    Message to members of my profession and my bar. So until my next report, you're here on Midas Touch, you're on Legal AF, hit the subscribe buttons for YouTube for both. Come…
  • Armed Services Committee — Company · Referenced institution · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as part of the oversight responsibilities of Senator Mark Kelly
    That as Americans, we have the right to say what we want, especially when it comes to the government. And doing my job as a United States senator on the Armed Services…
  • United States Navy — Company · Referenced institution · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as part of the background of one of the speakers in the video
    Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander, Representative Chrissy Hulahan, Congressman Jason Crowe. I was a captain in the United States Navy, former CIA officer, former Navy, former paratrooper and Army Ranger,.

Concepts & topics

  • First Amendment — Concept · Key argument · 4 mentions · first at
    Discussed as a constitutional right being challenged by the current administration
    Everybody's rights as Americans delineated in the Constitution, specifically about the First Amendment, that as Americans, we have the right to say what we want, especially…
  • Nuremberg principles — Concept · Key argument · 2 mentions
    Referenced as a legal standard for refusing illegal orders
    Messaging to service people that they have a constitutional obligation not to follow illegal orders. It's exactly consistent with the code of military justice with the Nermberg…

Full transcript with timestamps

As Pam Bondi hits the hot seat for sworn testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, she's got a lot of explaining to do because something really bad happened just before she took the stand. Last night, a grand jury rejected yet again the Department of Justice and its attempts to indict the political critics of Donald Trump. The DC grand jury completely rebuff the attempts by the Department of Justice, US Attorney for DC, Janine Piro, uh to indict Senators Mark Kell, Senators Elise Slotkin, uh and other members of Congress, six in total, who had made a now famous battlecry video, don't give up the ship, messaging to service people that they have a constitutional obligation not to follow illegal orders. It's exactly exactly consistent with the code of military justice with the with the Nermberg principles. And yet Donald Trump went crazy, said it was sedicious conspiracy, and that George Washington

would have hanged them. And right on Q, Pete Hgsith said that they were the sedistic six. The sedicious six, no less. And what does the grand jury do? No. Nah. Nope. Not doing it. This is a momentous sea change that I don't want you to lose sight of. Grand juries around the country, and I'm talking dozens and dozens and dozens of grand juries, are standing up and saying collectively, "Nope. We are not going to allow a lawless Trump Department of Justice to indict fellow Americans or others." And this is unprecedented. I've been doing this for more than 35 years.

You can count on two fingers the amount of indictments I can recall of high-profile or other cases that the Department of Justice didn't obtain an indictment. Now we're talking about 30, 40 50. And that is a good thing. That is a firewall to protect our rule of law. The federal court system, judges, juries, grand juries, they are not giving the Department of Justice the benefit of the doubt. They are not rubber stamping them. They are not blindly following them. They are because they've lost all integrity. They've lost all ethics.

They've lost all credibility. This is what happens when you hollow out a once proud organization called the Department of Justice and you weaponize it and you make it political and it's obvious to everybody who can see it and now it's filtering down of course to the grand juries. I'm Michael Popac. You're on Midas Touch and on Legal AF. Let's talk about what just happened on Tuesday night. We knew that they were working on this indictment because Mark Kelly, the senator from Arizona, ran to federal court and had a very good hearing last week in front of Judge Leon in the District of Colombia to stop Pete Het, the Department of Defense Secretary from censuring him as a retired military Navy captain for participating in the video and had a very good hearing in front of the judge. both under the first amendment and the speech and debate privilege. I mean Mark Kelly is on oversight committees like armed services

committee that provides oversight to these entities and those entities are going to censure him because he he told the truth. We also know that they were close to getting an indictment because Alisa Slotkin, Michigan senator who put the video together, she let the world know that she was called in to the Department of Justice to meet with Janine Piro and she refused. Instead, her lawyers told them to not only pound sand, but don't even go forward and they should dismiss the entire investigation. That didn't stop them. Mainly because the Department of Justice is scared of their boss, and I mean Donald Trump.

They'd rather lose at juries and grand juries and before judges than have and say, "Well, we tried." than to go back and say, "No, under the principles of federal prosecution, under the Department of Justice, Emanuel, under my own oath, how ironic. under my own oath sworn to uphold the Constitution. As an officer of the court, I will not bring this case. They They won't do it. They can't do it. Let's start with a couple of videos I think you're going to find interesting. One is the actual 92 video, don't give up the ship by six members of Congress who served in the intelligence community, you know, covert operations and or the the branches of the military talking directly to their fellow service people. And then I want to play a once long lost clip of Pete Hegsef giving a lecture at a military academy 10 years ago or so. can tell it's 10 years ago by his hair color and that that Alisa Alisa

Slackin and others found to show you that he agrees with the video's premise even though he now calls them sedicious 6. Let's play the original video first.

I'm Senator Alyssa Sodkin. Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Chris Deluzio, Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander,

Representative Chrissy Hulahan, Congressman Jason Crowe. I was a captain in the United States Navy,

former CIA officer, former Navy, former paratrooper and Army Ranger, former intelligence officer,

former Air Force. We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community

who take risks each day to keep Americans safe. We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military,

but that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniform military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath

to protect and defend this Constitution. And right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.

Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders.

You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution.

We know this is hard and that it's a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you're serving in the CIA,

the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back

because now more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws,

our Constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don't give up. Don't give up. Don't give up.

Don't give up the ship. Now, here's Pete Hegsth. I'm sure praying to God that we would never find this video now, but we found it. And here is the video of him saying the exact same thing. Can't follow illegal orders. Play the clip.

Uh if you're doing something that is just completely unlawful and uh and and ruthless, then there is a consequence for that. That's why the military said it won't follow unlawful orders uh from their commander-in-chief. Uh there there's a standard, there's an ethos, there's a belief that we are above uh what so many things that our enemies or others would do. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.

Now, Mark Kelly speaking right after his hearing last week about not having his First Amendment speech chilled, not having his um speech and debate privilege chilled. Said this to the American people. Play the clip.

Hey folks, I just got out of federal court here in Washington DC uh in my case uh against Pete Hgsap, the Secretary of Defense. First of all, I really appreciate the judge giving this very timely consideration. This is about everybody's rights as Americans delineated in the Constitution, specifically about the First Amendment, that as Americans, we have the right to say what we want, especially when it comes to the government. And doing my job as a United States senator on the Armed Services Committee, this administration, the president didn't like what I said. And for that, I'm in federal court today. But this isn't just about me. This is about all Americans, especially retired service members. Over two million retired service members who uh this government is telling them they do not have the same free speech rights as everybody else. That's wrong. It's unamerican and it has to stop.

Now, we knew that this was progressing as a criminal investigation in the DC office, Janine Piro. And then of course the DC office operates in DC which means you're pulling your jury and your grand jury from uh the the community the demographic of Washington and Washington DC which has been under siege by Donald Trump with the National Guard right till this minute is paying back the Trump administration. It's obvious now Janine Piro has come out in the past and said oh grand juries you know they're liberals. I don't know why they're not indicting. Here's here's Janine Piro complaining about why she's not getting grand juries to indict on her behalf. Play it.

Unprecedented push back from grand juries and even magistrate judges who are refusing to take indictments. Um, how do how do you explain,

you know, I if I were here for a long time, I might be able to answer that question. But I've been here since May. So, I mean, I have my thoughts, but I can't say for sure. Well, has it affected the way that your office prosecutes and charges these cases?

Yeah, we charge higher. And so they went forward with this. Why? Because Janine Piro is afraid of Donald Trump. She won't she won't refuse him. That's why she tried to indict people that threw a salami sandwich at at an ICE officer for for assault and why that failed. Alisa Slotkin and her lawyers get called in last week through the sergeant-at-arms in in Congress to go give testimony voluntarily and they said, "Bring it. Dismiss your dismiss your case." Between the First Amendment and speech and debate privilege, I have the right to speak and it can't be criminalized.

Here's what Elisa Slackin had to say. Earlier today, I sent a letter to Attorney General Bondi and to the lead Department of Justice lawyer in DC, Janine Piro, telling them one, I will not be complying with their inquiries and sitting down for an interview based on a 90-second video I filmed, and number two, urging them to retain their records on this case in case I decide to sue for infringement of my constitutional rights.

What's going to happen next? They may try again, but they're going to fail. And grand juries and juries and judges are standing up in year two of the Trump administration the way they never had before. I mean, the grand juries for sure. And so, if you get picked to be on a grand jury or a jury, you do your civic duty. You listen to the evidence. But if you don't find that there is probable cause for a crime, you reject it. It's getting so bad for the Trump administration and Department of Justice that when they tried to go after Leticia James, the New York Attorney General, and get her indicted three times, it failed. Two times in the last month or two. One grand jury not only said they're not going to return the indictment, but they're going to announce it in public that they didn't return a true bill of indictment. The Department of Justice was so embarrassed by that that they asked the judge to

seal the record so that nobody would know. So you and I would know about it. And the judge says, "I don't know why the grand jury wanted to go into public and announce that they had returned a no bill of indictment, no true bill of indictment. I can only speculate, but I'm not sealing it either." And this is this is the department of department of justice is even worried about having to report back to their bosses what happened and suffering the eyeire of Donald Trump. If they think Donald Trump was willing to hang these six members of Congress, what are the what do you think they're going to do to you and the Department of Justice?

Time to leave. I can't believe that. I mean, I haven't seen many new hires, but I can't believe rank and file prosecutors are still inside of this Department of Justice with any shred of integrity or dignity or ethics. You you know, I know in the beginning you thought, well, if I stay here, I can resist from the inside and they'll No, it's forget it. You'll just you'll just get fired, you know, and you'll do bad things. You'll be forced to do bad things in the interim. So that's my don't give up the ship message to members of my my profession and my bar. So until my next report, you're here on Midas Touch, you're on Legal AF, hit the subscribe buttons for YouTube for both. Come over to Legal AF Substack as well. Till my next report, this is Michael. Can't get your fill of legal AF. Me neither. That's why we formed the Legal AF Substack. Every time we mention something in a hottake, whether it's a court filing or a oral

argument, come over to the Substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do called, wait for it, Morning AF. What else? All the other contributors from Legal AF are there as well. We got some new reporting. We got interviews. We got ad free versions of the podcast and hot takes where Legal AF on Substack. Come over now to free subscribe.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "🚨 Trump gets RUDE AWAKENING from GRAND JURY"?

Michael Popac (Host), Pam Bondi (Guest), Janine Piro (Guest), Mark Kelly (Guest), Elisa Slotkin (Guest), Pete Hegseth (Guest).

What is "🚨 Trump gets RUDE AWAKENING from GRAND JURY" about?

A grand jury has rejected the Department of Justice's attempts to indict political critics of Donald Trump, including members of Congress involved in a video urging military personnel to resist illegal orders. This decision marks a significant shift in the judiciary's stance, with numerous grand juries across the country pushing back against what they perceive as lawless actions by the Trump…

What is mentioned in this MeidasTouch episode?

15 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Donald Trump, Department of Justice, Senator Mark Kelly, Alyssa Slotkin, First Amendment, Janine Piro. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "🚨 Trump gets RUDE AWAKENING from GRAND JURY"?

The episode runs 14 min; the transcript is about 2,323 words in 33 timestamped sections.

More from MeidasTouch

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated February 12, 2026.