Post

i know grand juries have a relatively low bar for bringing indictments but i find myself wondering WTF is up with some of these grand jurors

1.3K reposts9.7K likes

This is a well known quote. In 1985, Sol Wachtler, a jurist, said that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. But Comey, a ham sandwich? James, a ham sandwich?

Grand jurors are supposed to be randomly chosen. Do we really believe that happens, and that they aren't purposely chosen for their political views? I put nothing past Trumps DOJ, so it seems likely.

I was on a grand jury - there was no questioning. A lottery to get 23 jurors, plus 37 alternates. Of the 23, at least 16 have to show up for a case & 12 have to vote to indict. We heard 250 cases over 2 years. Many of them similar to what is happening now, but done correctly, i.e. warrants & rights.

I would question what "evidence" was put forth. If she's done a crime, by all means, prosecute away, but bringing an indictment based on misleading or false evidence will be brought out during trial for all to see.

I can't even imagine bringing crap like this in front of a grand jury. Though in fairness, two thirds of the grand jurors were probably sleeping and just nodded "true bill" to every case put in front of them.

Me too. But it's not out of the question that Halligan possibly falsified "evidence" to present to the grand jury. I wouldn't put it past any prosecutor in the DOJ under the Trump regime. DOJ, DHS, and other agencies now lie like Trump does. Read the thread under this post. bsky.app/profile/jjga...

This post is unavailable.

Prosecutors are free to pick who the jurors are, the accused has no rights or knowledge of the process, and have no freedom or rights to counter, cross examine, or challenge any of the “evidence” presented to the jurors.

They only get presented with what the prosecution wants them to see and you only need 12 out of 23 to move forward. I’m sure we will see it posted soon and find it just as lacking as the Comey indictment was. I’m interested to see her response.

This like the Comey grand jury conviction this will fall apart when they find that the evidence is manufactured. They just want his political enemies to go broke fighting in court. What a Vindictive Ass-Hole Orange Man is.

I would love to see a transcript of the presentation that Halligan made to them, I'm willing to bet it wasn't totally accurate evidence.

They are not given all the info; only selected; which results in the decision we see. For example; the grand jury was NOT given the page where James wrote in bold capital letters, not a primary residence.There is no prosecution at the table sharing info

Remember, they only hear one side, and we know this admin sees lying as a plus, so I’m not surprised. I am angry that tax money is being spent on the Orange Turd’s grievance tour. That’s my money being wasted!

I attribute it to the fact that they only hear one side, and an incomplete one at that. Not malice. But I don’t know the rules for what if any outside info they are allowed to consider.

I mean the only person that addresses them is the prosecutor, and I don't know if you've ever met a prosecutor but they rely on the "adversarial nature" of the legal system as an excuse to paint defendants as monstrous evil beings. And those are the good ones.

I’m wondering what she told them! I hope she is beyond embarrassed and will lose her license. If this is proven to be vindictive prosecution, can she be disbarred for bringing it forward? Will Tish want to take it to trial to expose them more or is the embarrassment of having it dismissed enough?

I don't think the case was laid out in a particularly credible or honest fashion would be my guess. Or to be more clear the prosecutor was just lying her ass off.

apparently it was day 1 of the grand jury being empaneled, and we cannot be certain that the sickofant installed as the US attorney for Eastern Virginia did not mischaracterize the scant evidence she may have had nor can we be sure she was even familiar with the case which seems impossible.

Who gets to pick who's on the jury? Looks like they picked all republicans willing to agree with whatever garbage the "attorney" (I use that lightly) had prepared for her by Bondi or Blanche.

We do not teach how our legal system & standards of proof are in jurisprudence in the most public school systems. Hell, we do not even teach the Constitution & Bill of Rights to any deep degree. Our District did & thank goodness.

Waste of taxpayer dollars- still has not increased my income or reduced my cost of living! Where does it end? Each administration charging the previous one OR we just permit each administration to commit crimes without consequences? Some 3rd world conditions here in the USA

Is this the same grand jury who indicted Comey? Is she waiting for its session to do this & why would that be? I mean, I know some of my cases were held until a certain GJ was in session based on make up of panel to get indictment with less pushback. FYI, my cases all ended with pleadings.

Of course they did. This particular Grand Jury had never heard a Case before. They were all new. And remember, there is no "Judge" in a Grand Jury Hearing, it is only the Prosecutor and the Grand Jury.

My uninformed opinion is that the indictment is brought based on the information provided by the prosecution with no information provided for the defence. If the prosecution are liars then the grand jury brings the indictment on that basis. That gets some press even if the trial goes nowhere.

@msnbc.com If a prosecutor presenting evidence to the grand jury withholds exculpatory evidence favorable to the person he is trying to indict, or worse, uses non-credible hearsay or just lies, it's easier to understand. There is no one to speak for the accused. I want the transcripts released.

Me too. I served on a fed. grand jury for a year. Pretty sure this one would have gotten a no bill. Although I think I heard someone say today that this Grand Jury literally just got seated and this was the first case they heard which makes me think something fishy is a foot.

They only get one side, presented in summary fashion. Govt doesn’t have to tell them about exculpatory evidence. That’s usually not an issue, since ethical prosecutors aren’t supposed to bring cases that don’t look like slam dunk winners.

At this phase of America If they put me on a grand jury out jury trial I’m throwing the case for the defense unless they’ve done something truly horrible. You wouldn’t catch me playing for the state

But don't they only consider "evidence" presented them by the prosecutor? Once the "evidence" is shown in a courtroom to have the consistency of fairy dust they'll claim a biased jury or judge when it gets thrown out.

Good question, but to be fair to them, they're only getting one biased side of the story, namely the Trumpian version. The thing will fall apart at trial, or even before if the judge buys the argument that this is a vindictive prosecution.

My mom was on a grand jury once and said it was amazing all the other jurors just took what ever the prosecutors said as fact. She stood up at one point and said "aren't you going to ask them any questions before you allow these wire taps?"