MS NOW95%
As the FBI eyes Democratic veterans in Congress, members have a decision to make79%
By Steve Benen98%
11/26/2025, 2:10:46 PM
BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Overconfidence Bias, and Begging the Question, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 49% saturation with 302 hits. Analysis detected 1,316 faulty-reasoning hits from 616 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 71.9% and a BS Rank of 79% (3,534 of 16,813 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.00% of the article peer group.
Two days after several Democratic military veterans urged service members to reject illegal orders, the White House began a furious pushback campaign, though it was limited to vituperative rhetoric.
Donald Trump helped lead the charge, insisting that the Democratic veterans had engaged in "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!"
This week, however, the Republican administration apparently decided that threats and public condemnations would not suffice.
On Monday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced an investigation into Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, and a day later, federal law enforcement followed suit.
MS NOW reported:
FBI and Justice Department officials have contacted the U.S. Capitol Police to arrange interviews with six Democratic lawmakers who urged military personnel to refuse 'illegal orders.'
A law-enforcement source not authorized to speak publicly about ongoing investigations was granted anonymity by MS NOW to confirm the inquiries.
All of the lawmakers involved said they have, in fact, been contacted by the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms on behalf of the FBI to set up interviews.
When the news first broke on Tuesday afternoon about the FBI and the Justice Department reaching out to the Democratic veterans who appeared in the "illegal orders" video, it was tempting to think that officials might've wanted to speak to the lawmakers about their own safety.
After all, in the wake of the president's rhetoric about "sedition" and "death," the members received a series of threatening messages.
But that wasn't the point of the outreach at all.
Rather, Trump's FBI and DOJ sought out the Democratic veterans, not because they're potential victims of right-wing violence, but because the Republican administration believes the members might've crossed legal lines by encouraging service members to work within legal lines.
That might sound like a flippant summary of recent events, but it's also accurate: Sitting members of Congress are now facing law enforcement scrutiny because they reminded those in uniform about the importance of following the law.
To date, there is no evidence to suggest that the Democrats in question did anything wrong.
Evidently, the investigation is proceeding anyway.
One Justice Department official told Reuters that FBI interviews would determine "if there's any wrongdoing, and then go from there."
An NBC News report added that DOJ guidelines "require investigative steps against sitting members of Congress to go through an approval process within the Justice Department to ensure that federal law enforcement power isn't being used for political purposes."
Whether these guidelines were followed in this matter is unclear.
There's no shortage of questions surrounding this bizarre and unsettling story, but at the top of the list is a practical consideration: Will the six Democratic lawmakers agree to answer the FBI's and DOJ's questions?
They're under no obligation to do so.
Indeed, given that this scrutiny is obviously political and lacking in merit, it's easy to imagine the veteran members simply declining the invitation to cooperate with the baseless probe.
If FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi, eager to impress the White House, decide to pursue a subpoena, they could certainly try, but (a) there's no reason to assume this would work; (b) it'd likely produce some hilarious court filings ("Your honor, we believe these members of Congress hurt Trump's feelings by telling the truth"); and (c) there's no reason to comply with such madness in advance.
For that matter, given the Constitution's "speech or debate" clause, it's unrealistic to think any of this could result in charges anyway, reinforcing impressions that the request for interviews is a little more than a pitiful attempt at harassment.
For now, the Democratic veterans are emphasizing the fact that they won't be intimidated.
Watch this space.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.