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......

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.