Bulwark Takes - Sen. Kelly: Trump Wants Me in Jail for Telling the Truth

Episode Date: February 12, 2026

Sen. Mark Kelly joins Sam Stein to explain just how close the country came to a constitutional crisis. He discusses the grand jury’s rejection, the chilling effect on retired service members, and why he believes this fight is far from over—including what Mike Johnson and Republican leaders are (and aren’t) doing about it.

Hey Ontario, come on down to BetMGM Casino and check out our newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. Don't miss out. Play exciting casino games based on the iconic game show. Only at BetMGM. Access to the Price is right fortune pick is only available at BedMGM Casino. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connix Ontario at 1866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario.

Hey, everybody. It's me, Sam Stein, managing editor at the Bork, and I am joined by Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona. We are fresh off breaking news, relatively breaking news, that the Trump Justice Department tried and failed to indict him and five other sitting Democratic lawmakers for the temerity of putting out a video that said you don't have to follow on lawful orders, which is true. Senator, we're a bit removed from that now. I saw you on the shows yesterday. I'm just sort of curious, first things first, when did you actually? find out that they tried to indict you? They tried. So they impaneled the grand jury a couple days ago. You know, we heard that they were doing this. They don't actually notify you. That's not the process. And then we heard they didn't have the votes. We later found out just NBC reported they didn't get any votes to indict us. It's good to know that just some regular U.S. citizens, you know, here I presume in Washington, D.C., where they tried to do this, understand the Constitution.

better than the president, better than Pam Bondi, or Janine Piro, the DC U.S. attorney. Hey, they're trying to take away the First Amendment, those rights of free speech, freedom of the press from all Americans. 350 million of us. And for me, as a retired service member, they're going after me through the Defense Department to try to demote me and take away my rank for something I said. they didn't get this Sam. I mean, this is how crazy this is. We said something that they didn't like. And because of that, they're trying to send us to jail. I thought a lot about that. It is quite chilling. I want to just sort of picture the alternative scenario where actually the grand jury does go forward and says, sure, because usually, I mean, the old saying that a ham sandwich could get indebted, it's uncommon. People should understand how uncommon it is. Well, Sam, I did the math. I did the math on this. right from 2013. There were 165,000 federal indictments. There were five that were unsuccessful.

That's 99.997 percent probability of success. That was in 2013. Let's say they had gone through with this. What kind of constitutional crisis do you think we would be in at that point? I mean, now you have six sitting lawmakers of the opposition party facing the prospects of arrest, having been indicted. Have you thought about the alternative scenario? here and how close we were to a real, real, real problem? We're obviously in a problem right now. Had that grand jury actually said, yeah, we'll go forward to the indictment. Yeah, I mean, of course, not only have I thought about it, I've talked to my colleagues about

it, including my Republican colleagues. And we're still there, right? This administration doesn't, like, give up on these kind of things. They don't respect the process or the rule of law. They're not going to respect these jurors on their. this grand jury, their decision? At least I don't think so. I don't think they're going away. I don't think this is over. I think we're closer to the beginning of this than we are to the end. So yeah, I've thought about constitutional crisis. Your colleague Senator Schatz said he also has spoken to those

Republican colleagues that you're talking about. I noticed that he said, and he was on the floor when he said this, he said, the reaction is, and this is his quote, the system held. This was a failed indictment. And then he also said, I'm not entirely sure the United States Senate can survive this if we do not have Republicans standing up for our most basic principles. I'm wondering two questions. One, have you had, is that what your Republican colleagues has said to you, too, the system held? There was this, this was a failed indictment. And two is, do you share your colleagues' assessment about the state of the Senate over the lack of outrage from Republicans? Well, we need to see outrage. And they say things differently and frame this differently privately than they do in

public. And we saw some of them, you know, I think with some positive movement yesterday, I think six or seven of them said stuff that were, you know, supportive of our position. And, you know, they realize that this is a really bad idea to do this. I mean, we, we have a separation of powers in this country for a reason. Our founding fathers did not want an executive, you know, that is like a dictator, an authoritarian. That's why we are the Article I branch of government. We come in the Constitution first. And most of the power was with Congress. That has changed over the years. But Sam, I'll say this, they need to do more. You know, they need to like step up in a way that actually has an impact. And they need to tell the administration that you, you are entering some, you know, dangerous waters here.

And we could wind up in a constitutional crisis if they throw Alyssa Slotkin and I and four house members in prison because of something we say. said, we then have a big problem. So there's speaking up, which I think is obvious and needed. And I want to actually, I'm going to circle back to Mike Johnson in a minute. But because you raised the issue, there are very little other sort of constraints here beyond speaking out. There is the possibility of counter suing, I suppose.

And Jason Crow has hired a lawyer asking Janine Pura, the D.C. district, turn into preserve records. You could defund the Department of Justice to some degree. You could hold Pam Bondi, you know, you can try to impeach her or hold her in contempt. I guess not going to be tributtal. But there's very little constraints beyond outrage, unless I'm missing something. Am I missing something? Well, I think one of the things I think you need to make clear to your audience is those are tools that mostly exist with the majority. Yeah, and you're not in it. So the Republicans have those levers. Yeah. You know, we can demand certain things. I think. and there are things that we, you know, we can do, you know, here in the United States Senate.

And by the way, I've already sued. I mean, I've sued Pete Hegseth because they want to demote me and take away part of my pension. Where, you know, where, you know, the judge is going to rule on the first hearing on a preliminary injunction, you know, maybe today, maybe tomorrow, we'll see. I mean, it's, you know, his, he decides the timing and I respect that. But yeah, we've got some levers here, but most of those reside with the Republicans. So it's going to be up to them to say, hey, is this what we want our government to function like this? And by the way, at some point, Democrats are going to be in the majority. I mean, are they going to want to find themselves in a similar situation? Now, I don't want to see that.

we've got to get back to a government that works normally because we have a lot of problems. And this is a distraction from us solving these problems. Circling back to Mike Johnson, because this ties into what you're saying, which is will Republicans come to their senses around the threats that are being posed by this DOJ? And will they speak out about what's happening? And the first reaction from the speaker, as you saw, I saw you react to it last night in CNN, was that he supported the effort to indict you. His rationale was that I guess he interfered in some law enforcement operations.

I couldn't even really follow up. Yeah, Sam, he does it. He's clueless. He doesn't even understand. He apparently maybe he hasn't watched the video. He hasn't followed this. He should go and educate himself on this issue before he speaks out because what he said made no sense. No sense to me.

Yeah. I was wondering, let's say you had a, you managed to just sort of have an audience with the speaker. You could reach him by phone today, for instance, because let's say he calls you and he says, hey, I want to understand what's going on. What do you say to him in that context? Well, first of all, I don't think there is any upside for me to go over to the Capitol and sit down with the president's personal representative in the United States House. That's what the speaker has become. He is not, he's not functioning as a leader of that body.

He seems to, you know, have forgotten, you know, what his constitutional responsibilities are. And, I mean, what I've seen from him is he is, he is just, you know, there to echo what the White House says. Okay. Let's say you have an audience with some of your fellow Republican centers. And I know you're having conversations with them in private. Yeah. What's the picture telling them? How do you convince them to speak out?

Well, I mean, I just had one of these conversations this morning, like, you know, an hour ago with one of my Republican colleagues. And I'm like, you know, this White House doesn't, you know, want to, I don't think they're going to, you know, give up on this. They've, they've shown, there's a lot of evidence that they will, you know, keep this up for as long as they, possibly can. And it is really bad for this institution, for the United States Senate, for us to have a functioning government if the executive branch is trying to throw members of the legislative branch in prison. Like, that's not good. That doesn't help us solve the problems and help bring the prices of groceries down and, you know, help people afford a place to live and deal with the national security issues that we're currently facing. This isn't helpful. And if they think it only affects

two people in the United States Senate, that is not true. This affects all of us. You know, this is much bigger than me and Alyssa Slokkin at this point. And it's not just about senators. This is about all Americans and our rights to be able to say what we believe. We believe. We're leave and speak out against the government. Yeah, that's what I pick. I mean, that I think people are kind of losing that. You're no offense. I mean, obviously, you're one of a hundred very privileged members. You have protections that are not afforded to average U.S. citizens. You have the speech and debate clause. One of the things that obviously is happening here, at least my read of it, is that this is speech intimidation. They want to make you think twice before you and other lawmakers

cut similar videos in the future or even speak out against the administration's actions. I presume you're not going to be, you know, intimidated by this, but do you think others might be? Oh, I know they already have been. And it's not just senators and members of the House, members of the military. There are two million retired service members out there. If they can go after me as a U.S. Senator who spent 25 years in the Navy and demote me and take away my pension for something that I've said, they can go after anybody. And I've heard from retired admirals and generals that they have already changed what they say publicly and what they do because of this. It has already chilled the speech of people who have spent most of their adult lives

defending this country, defending the Constitution, often going to war for American values for our system of government that have risked their lives. Now they find themselves in a position because of what this administration is doing to me that they can no longer speak out the way they feel, the way they want to. That's already happened. That's why, Sam, I cannot like, you know, back down from, you know, this corrupt administration. You know, I've got to stand up for my rights, for those two million retired services.

members and for 350 million other Americans who for 250 years have had the right to say what they believe. All right. My last question to you. So I don't really know how this works, obviously, because we're in uncharted territory. I'm short of waters here. Since the failed indictment, since the failed grand jury vote, have your staff or legal representatives heard at all from Janine Piro's office or the Department of Justice? Do you have any insight into what the next steps are here? Because you hinted that. You don't think this is going away. believe it could be brought back up, but is there any actual data points or evidence to suggest they will be brought back up? Well, yeah, we have not heard from the U.S. Attorney's Office or the Attorney

General's Office. And I think it's, you know, important to, you know, recognize that those organizations are no longer independent, right? They do the bidding of this president, but we have not heard from them. All right. Well, keep us posted if you do. And Senator Kelly, thank you so much for doing this. I really appreciate it. I know you're incredibly busy right now, but these are important times. This is an important discussion. So thank you.

And for those who are watching, thank you for watching Bullwork Takes. Please subscribe to our feed where you get great interviews like this. Senator, take care.