In a move that has sparked widespread controversy and raised eyebrows across the legal community, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro made an unprecedented decision in her pursuit of charges against six Democratic lawmakers. But here’s where it gets even more intriguing: Pirro enlisted the help of a former dance photographer—someone she hadn’t worked with in decades—as one of the prosecutors in this high-stakes case. Steven Vandervelden, whose day job involves capturing the artistry of dance through his lens, found himself presenting federal charges to a grand jury, only to be met with rejection. And this is the part most people miss: Vandervelden was one of two prosecutors with minimal federal experience tapped by Pirro for this politically charged case, which has been widely criticized as an attack on free speech.
The case itself revolves around a video created by the lawmakers, reminding military service members of their right to refuse unlawful orders. While such cases typically involve seasoned federal prosecutors, Pirro’s decision to bring in outsiders—including Vandervelden and Carlton Davis, another special counsel with limited federal experience—has left legal experts baffled. Former federal prosecutors in Washington describe this move as unprecedented, questioning why career prosecutors were sidelined for such a sensitive investigation.
Vandervelden, a former local prosecutor in Westchester County, N.Y., where Pirro once served as district attorney, declined to comment on the case, citing its potentially open status. Meanwhile, his photography website, featuring sections like “Dance Puppetry” and “Circus, Yoga, and Fitness,” paints a picture of a man whose passions extend far beyond the courtroom. In a 2023 interview, he reflected on his transition from law to photography, saying, “I spent a good portion of my life peering into the darkness looking for the bad guy. Now it’s a joy to peer into the darkness and look for the light and find beauty as opposed to the grime.”
But here’s the controversial twist: Pirro defended her hires, praising Vandervelden as “one of the best prosecutors and best investigators” she’s worked with in over three decades. She added, “Everybody has a hobby,” seemingly brushing off concerns about his dual career. Davis, a former staffer for Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), was also lauded by Pirro for his investigative experience. However, critics argue that their appointment smacks of political favoritism, especially given the mass exodus of experienced prosecutors from Pirro’s office in recent years.
The investigation into the six Democrats, including Sens. Mark Kelly (Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), was notably kept separate from the DC office’s public corruption team, which has a history of probing congressional members. Typically, charges against sitting lawmakers require extensive approvals and consultations with the DOJ’s public integrity section. But with that office significantly depleted over the past year, it’s unclear if anyone there had oversight of this case.
This raises a thought-provoking question: Was this case a legitimate pursuit of justice, or a politically motivated attempt to silence dissent? The grand jury’s rejection of the charges suggests the latter, but Pirro’s office remains undeterred. As the dust settles, one thing is clear: this case has exposed deep fissures within the justice system, leaving many to wonder about the future of free speech and political impartiality in law enforcement. What do you think? Is this a fair pursuit of justice, or a troubling overreach? Let’s discuss in the comments.
