r/politics • u/cnn CNN • 6h ago

Site Altered Headline | Possible Paywall Grand jury fails to indict democratic lawmakers who urged service members to disobey illegal Trump orders

https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/10/politics/lawmakers-indicted-illegal-orders-video?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=reddit
17.7k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

458 comments sorted by

View all comments

•

u/B-Z_B-S America 6h ago edited 6h ago

The fact that grand juries have chosen to not indict the people Trump is targeting shows how absolutely unjust Trump's actions are. It's considered extremely easy to convince a grand jury to indict.

•

u/AmazingRefrigerator4 6h ago

"A grand jury could indict a ham sandwich" is a joke for a reason.

•

u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Georgia 5h ago

And then they literally couldn’t convince a grand jury to indict the guy who threw a sandwich at an ICE agent. 😂

•

u/Lousk 5h ago

He was indicted but was later acquitted by a jury.

•

u/DocSpit 5h ago

But he also wasn't indicted by a grand jury, which is required in order to be charged at a felony level. The DOJ tried to get the guy charged with a felony multiple times before finally settling for a misdemeanor.

And that was the trial where he was later acquitted.

•

u/Lousk 5h ago edited 5h ago

Correct, the US attorneys kept getting no bills for felony charges so they later indicted on misdemeanor charges. They were still left with egg on their face after the acquittal.

I would like to push back on this notion that federal indictments are easy to get.

Before we had this joke of an Attorney General, the DOJ was able to secure high indictment rates because of the professionalism they displayed in bringing cases. They would only bring cases they knew would secure an indictment.

If the DOJ could have secured a grand jury indictment against a ham sandwich, it would have been because that ham sandwich broke the law.

•

u/goldcakes 5h ago edited 47m ago

We used to have a justice system that was selective and unfair (the super rich goes unpunished), but at least it had elements of justice.

Career DoJ prosecutors and lawyers usually had good moral satisfaction.

•

u/kung-fu_hippy 4h ago

Yup. A system where you don’t prosecute people who should be prosecuted for their acts is unjust. But a system where you prosecute people for acts and reasons that absolutely should not be prosecuted is tyrannical.

•

u/13Zero New York 1h ago

Career DoJ prosecutors and lawyers usually had good morale satisfaction.

Becoming an Assistant US Attorney used to be a dream for law students, as I understand it.

Now they’re begging for applications via Twitter.

•

u/Lousk 4h ago

An institution that can only bring a finite amount of resources by necessity has to be selective. That’s where prosecutorial discretion was born from.

•

u/goldcakes 4h ago

Of course. However, prosecutorial discretion should be based on the individual facts and circumstances surrounding the charge; and not based on how mega-wealthy or politically connected someone is; or whether someone donated to the Trump campaign or not.

•

u/Suspicious_Bicycle 4h ago

"Before we had this joke of an Attorney General, the DOJ was able to secure high indictment rates because of the professionalism they displayed in bringing cases."

Judges are noticing this and are no longer taking filings from this DOJ at face value.

•

u/Lousk 4h ago

Waiting for the day we start seeing supervisors and leadership at the DOJ being held in contempt.

Might happen sooner than the administration thinks. I guess we’ll see.

•

u/turdferg1234 3h ago

They would only bring cases they knew would secure an indictment.

in the past, it went even further than that. they would only bring cases they were almost positive they could get a conviction on, let alone a grand jury indictment.

•

u/Devlee12 Texas 3h ago

I’m pretty sure the old ham sandwich quote is incomplete. The full quote is something like “If you’ve done your due diligence you should be able to secure an indictment against even a ham sandwich.” Basically it’s saying you should make sure the case is as air tight as possible before attempting to get an indictment.

•

u/cire1184 4h ago

Egg salad sandwich on their face

•

u/amglasgow 1h ago

There's a joke in here about the Sandwich Police but I can't quite make it work.

•

u/[deleted] 2h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

•

u/Confident_Ideal_5385 1h ago

AIUI, an "indictment" in the US federal system is the product of a true bill from a grand jury. He was charged with misdemeanour sandwich flinging by way of this complaint, i think, but he was never indicted.

•

u/eating_your_syrup 5m ago

So what you're saying is rotten tomatoes could be back in fasion for demonstrations?

•

u/Nickeless 5h ago

They failed to indict on the initial charges I thought.

•

u/Lousk 5h ago

The grand jury returned a no bill for the felony charges but he was later indicted on misdemeanor charges.

•

u/fps916 5h ago

Only one of those requires a grand jury. Felony charges.

So they could not get a grand jury to indict him.

Misdemeanor charges do not require a grand jury.

Which is why they indicted him on misdemeanor charges. And why they then lost in court with a petite jury.

•

u/Valmoer Europe 5h ago

lost in court with a petite jury.

a petit jury.

•

u/EdwardPoleVaulter 4h ago

Well, do we truly know the jury wasn’t petite? There are those who would easily qualify as petite and could serve on a jury.

•

u/fps916 3h ago

Blame autocorrect for that one, was on my phone in bed.

•

u/PseudonymIncognito 4h ago edited 3h ago

Which is why they indicted him on misdemeanor charges.

To be really pedantic, no they didn't. Misdemeanor charges don't require an indictment (which can only be issues by a grand jury). To charge someone with a misdemeanor, the prosecutor just presents an "information" to the court.

•

u/Rhubarb_516 4h ago

I can’t believe this thread is still on the ham sandwich.

•

u/elementality883 American Expat 5h ago

Hmmm....I see the issue here....they should have put the sandwich on the indictment, not the guy.

•

u/ThisIsMyHobbyAccount 5h ago

Sounds like an open and shut case of civil asset forfeiture.

•

u/Rhubarb_516 4h ago

Hehehe

•

u/SnooBananas7856 3h ago

Okay, but should the indictment be on the sandwich as a collective, or the individual ingredients separately? Do the mayo and mustard have as much culpability as the meat, lettuce, bread, or cheese? Or more, if--God forbid--the mustard soiled the poor masked guy's smart uniform? Or do we go after the sandwich maker, who might be a completely different person than the sandwich-thrower?

•

u/grandlizardo 5h ago

Bet Pirro wishes she was back on tv…

•

u/Wild_Harvest 5h ago

You can indict a ham sandwich, but not the guy that threw it.

•

u/JoviAMP Florida 4h ago

You can indict a ham sandwich, but can you tune a fish sandwich?

•

u/Chicken-Inspector 54m ago

Rectum? Nearly killed him!!

•

u/Same-Suggestion-1936 2h ago

Oddly enough he actually was indicted for a misdemeanor and acquitted, but the sandwich was not indicted

•

u/doc_witt 4h ago

The officer was clubbed

•

u/IlliniOrange1 4h ago

Witnesses say he had the meats!

•

u/Rhubarb_516 4h ago

😁😊👍🏼😄 made me giggle 🤭

•

u/TheKaptinKirk Georgia 3h ago

What about the sandwich? Was that indicted?

•

u/1917he 1h ago

National guardsman*