In a move that has sparked widespread controversy and raised serious questions about political motivations, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro has enlisted a former dance photographer-turned-lawyer to prosecute a high-stakes case against six Democratic lawmakers. But here's where it gets controversial: this isn't just any case—it's one that many view as a politically charged attack on free speech. And this is the part most people miss: the prosecutor in question, Steven Vandervelden, has a background that’s as unconventional as it gets, blending a career in law with a passion for capturing the artistry of dance through his lens.
Vandervelden, who once ran an active photography studio (https://stevenv873.smugmug.com/Site-Files/About-Me) with sections like “Dance Puppetry” and “Circus, Yoga, and Fitness,” was part of Pirro’s team that failed to convince a grand jury to indict the lawmakers. The charges? Creating a video reminding military service members of their right to refuse unlawful orders. This case has been widely criticized as an overreach, with former federal prosecutors in Washington calling Pirro’s decision to assign it to outsiders—rather than seasoned career prosecutors—unprecedented.
But why Vandervelden? He’s one of two Pirro hires with minimal federal prosecution experience who were rejected by the grand jury. While he has a long history as a local prosecutor in Westchester County, N.Y., where Pirro once served as district attorney, his federal courtroom appearance alongside another Pirro appointee, Carlton Davis, has left many scratching their heads. Davis, a former staffer for Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), also lacks extensive federal experience, having only briefly served as an assistant U.S. attorney in 2018.
What’s more, the case itself is highly unusual. Prosecutors rarely fail to secure an indictment from a grand jury, and the willingness to pursue charges against sitting lawmakers—including Sens. Mark Kelly (Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (Mich.)—has shocked legal experts. Typically, such cases require approvals from the DOJ’s public integrity section, but that office has been significantly weakened over the past year, leaving it unclear whether anyone there even reviewed this effort.
Pirro defends her choices fiercely, calling Vandervelden “one of the best prosecutors and best investigators” she’s worked with in her three-decade career. She adds, “Everybody has a hobby,” brushing off concerns about his photography background. But critics argue that this case smacks of political retribution, especially given the mass exodus of experienced prosecutors from Pirro’s office, including key members of the public corruption unit.
Vandervelden himself has reflected on his transition from law to photography, telling the Rockland/Westchester Journal News in 2023, “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.” Yet, his return to the legal spotlight in this contentious case has reignited debates about the intersection of politics, law, and personal passions.
Is this a legitimate pursuit of justice, or a politically motivated attack on free speech? And what does it say about the state of our justice system when unconventional hires are tasked with such sensitive cases? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments—do you think Pirro’s choices were justified, or is this a step too far?
