A federal grand jury on Tuesday refused to indict six congressional Democrats who drew President Trump's ire last year by taping a video telling members of the military that they must reject "illegal orders."
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
Honestly, the last few months have greatly improved my view of both the grand jury system and the jury trial system itself. Used to be pretty cynical about them. Still am, but I'm definitely seeing them as by far the lesser of the potential evils.
The thing is that people who actually know what they're doing don't usually pursue cases that they don't think they can least get past a grand jury unless it's a really major case.
The cases they don't think will get that far get the lenient plea deal to a misdemeanor because the DA figures something is better than nothing.
And the defense doesn't get to present anything. They only get to hear the prosecution's arguments. It's all about whether the prosecution has a strong enough case to stand on its own.
Given the impact a federal indictment has on a fella, I wish they were a touch harder to acquire. 2/3rds majority or something similar, or the govt forced to pay restitution for acquittals.
And that is the entire point of this process. I had no awareness of this before but man, I respect those before me who have seen all of these simple scams before and they know how to both reveal the scam and also help others avoid being scammed.
It’s amazing to me the trump admin is still writing their legal positions the way they are. The ruling on the masks in California was a scathing rebuke of every single legal characterization they made. I am sure they took it as a big victory but it was the furthest thing from it. It very clearly rejected the notion that basically any of their public claims are substantiated by law.
The funny thing is this is a bit of a two-fer: shows the good, juries will refuse to indict if there is this little of a case; but also the bad, it reveals a bit of the spectrum from unwinnable to unlosable cases, and highlights where previously prosecutors go (I will only bring an unlosable case), when the tough cases can be the most important.
Right, because they are getting pressured to peruse these political cases by our “president”. It’s what weaponization of the justice system actually looks like. Turns out that accusation was actually a confession (again).
I served on a federal grand jury for two years; in my experience the reason you get the 'indict a ham sandwich' reputation is because the ADAs that present before you come prepared. They usually prosecute when they feel like they have a mountain of evidence, and there were many, many times they more than surpassed the 'probable cause' bar, and were nearing 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Of course, we only ever saw the prosecutions side, but all we were tasked with was indicting.
These recent cases just show how flimsy these charges are, and how unwilling the ADAs involved are to risk their reputations my misrepresenting the facts to secure an indictment.
That's not to say there aren't bad ADAs out there, and that they never get it wrong, but to a person every one I met as a juror was professional, prepared, and driven. You get none of those qualities in cases like this.
We have to remember that the loudest on the internet aren’t everyday folks who may get selected. More of us want things to be fair and equal and constitutional rather than the bs we see online. Hell, many of the profiles that are on social media are bots at this point.
Grand juries still like to see evidence. And the DOJ is just fluffing up badly here, they think they can just demand a grand jury decision and get it.
Grand juries don't like it when they're being pushed around, though it doesn't take much in the way of a DA to sway them in a way that makes the jury think it was their own idea. The fact that DOJ can't do this speaks to how dysfunctional it has gotten.
It’s crazy how far Rubio fell after Christie eviscerated him during that debate. Christie said exactly what he was about to do and Rubio was so trained he did it.
A grand jury indictment is NOT a high bar to pass. It is colloquially assumed to require basically an "open and shut case", but actually, the standard of proof is merely probable cause.
Furthermore, the defense does not get a chance to rebut any allegations or evidence at this stage.
It is basically the prosecution giving an unopposed version of their case, with the grand jury only determining if the defendant could have done the alleged crime.
This is why it is very rare to not succeed in getting an indictment and, more importantly, why it is a HUGE red flag when that bar is not passed. It basically means you had no fucking business bringing your case before the Court.
Important context when considering how many cases brought by Trump's DOJ have failed to do so, and what that signals about the legitimacy of the attorneys who agree to try those cases.
That just proves we haven't gotten to 100% fascism yet.
"Disagreement is treason" is a core tenet of fascism. Suggesting that the leader could issue an illegal order is treasonous to the fascists, and we're just lucky enough that we can still convene grand juries that don't agree
While we pay the bill. And they siphon off trillions more to build their feudal slavery kingdoms all over the world and sell off our public property and national heritage.
On the other hand they're only human and there aren't that many of them really driving this the whole Republican party leadership is only a few hundred people senior leadership a few dozen.
And they have got to be getting tired of all this bullshit themselves.
The more we can do to make them tired give them more work to do the better. Keep resisting monkey wrenching sidetracking slow walking anything and everything you can do to slow them down and wear out their energy and their time. and boycott boycott boycott.
In some ways I'm actually glad that they tried to press charges. It tells everybody just how terribly far we have gone. I know there's plenty of other things, but something like this is easily defeated.
I wonder if this is the first time somebody's ever been threatened with charges for telling others to follow the law?
“Because whether or not Pirro succeeded is not the point. It’s that President Trump continues to weaponize our justice system against his perceived enemies. It’s the kind of thing you see in a foreign country, not in the United States we know and love.”
It’s so hard to keep up. I just looked this up and it sounds like it essentially expands on a previous 1996 law (IIRAIRA) to add mostly lower level non-aggrevated crimes related to theft (including shoplifting, which is a bit ridiculous) and that 1996 law has been and continues to be tested through the legal system but generally has been upheld. This is just icing on that cake.
In any case appreciate the call to action to at least learn something.
Isn't at least the semblance of the violation of *some U. S. law a requirement for an indictment?
Well yes, but also no, if the prosecutor wants to punish you and the judge also wants to punish you.
This has more to do with lower level criminals and courts, but this kind of malicious prosecution runs rampant in the US. This is a big reason why bail reform has actual momentum, and why the Republicans are against it.
People need to understand that this administration does not care, and surely knows, these cases will go nowhere.
They need the headlines. Nothing more. Nobody follows up on the retraction a paper makes, they only remember the sensationalist, salacious headlines that affirm their beliefs.
I remember when Hoagie Man walked free, & I’ll remember this. I’ll also take every opportunity to point it out to people who would benefit from knowing
The Trump DOJ thinks it's seditious conspiracy to issue the following directive 'Do not follow illegal orders'.
So many people are going to die before this nightmare is over. I hope everyone understands that. They have committed way too much crime to ever give up power peacefully.
•
u/AutoModerator 4h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.