I've served on a federal grand jury...

[dutch508]

cynatnite (28,807 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029411819

I've served on a federal grand jury...

The prosecutors had nearly irrefutable evidence. They were 100% professional and had their shit together.

The cases that were presented had a mountain of evidence.

I have no doubt Bob Mueller has a strong case.

 

Star Member lpbk2713 (31,973 posts)
3. Trumpie's world is about to turn to chit.

Star Member Wellstone ruled (12,142 posts)
4. Same here.

Talk about I's dotted and T's crossed,never any grey areas. Always laugh when we see stories questioning Fed Grand Juries.

every other post will be about some DUmpmonkie who's been on a "Federal Grand Jury"...

[BannedFromDU]

cynatnite (28,807 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029411819

I've served on a federal grand jury...

The prosecutors had nearly irrefutable evidence caesar salads. They were 100% professional and had their shit together delicious.

The cases of Diet Coke that were presented had came with a mountain of evidence ice.

I have no doubt Bob Mueller has a strong case aroma of garlic.

Made it far more likely.

[SVPete]

Two words: "Fishing expedition".

Three words: "24 business hours".

One word: "Fitzmas".

One name: Lucy Van Pelt.

[BannedFromDU]

     Artist rendering of DUmmies waiting for Republican impeachments:

[Cats]

Na... If they had a strong case they would probably be leaking like a sieve. - Of course I don't think there's anything to find. Should be a fun day at the dump when they give their ruling. 

[Texacon]

Oh ... SHIT!  Why even have a trial then?

Are these the same people who didn't like the Michael Brown verdict?  The one the Feds wouldn't take?  During the Obama administration?

Thought so.

KC

[I_B_Perky]

cynatnite (28,807 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029411819

I've served on a federal grand jury...

Well whoop-dee-do.  So have a lot of people.  BFD dummie.  Grand Juries can, will and probably have indicted a ham sandwich.  You only get one side of the story.

[SVPete]

...  Grand Juries can, will and probably have indicted a ham sandwich.  You only get one side of the story.

That was what POed DU-folk about the Michael Brown Grand Jury. The (local) prosecutor wanted any indictment to be a solid one, and thus presented more than just one side of the evidence. DU-folk wanted an indictment, justice be damned. But like I say so often, facts don't matter on DU.

[BannedFromDU]

That was what POed DU-folk about the Michael Brown Grand Jury. The (local) prosecutor wanted any indictment to be a solid one, and thus presented more than just one side of the evidence. DU-folk wanted an indictment, justice be damned. But like I say so often, facts don't matter on DU.

       Then here's all Trump needs to do to get liberal street cred:

[Maverick1987]

That was what POed DU-folk about the Michael Brown Grand Jury. The (local) prosecutor wanted any indictment to be a solid one, and thus presented more than just one side of the evidence. DU-folk wanted an indictment, justice be damned. But like I say so often, facts don't matter on DU.

Only outcomes matter, SVP.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Grand juries see 'Nearly irrefutable evidence' because only the Prosecutor presents a case, and only the case he or she wants to present - no alternate interpretations, no contrary evidence, not even a peep allowed from the defense table...because the target and his defense counsel aren't allowed to BE there, unless the target is actually testifying, and then his counsel can only be there while he is on the stand.

Of course, this is exactly the sort of trial the DUmmies trust, as long as it comes out their way.  The old saying that 'You can indict a ham sandwich' is pretty accurate, the problem for the prosecutor arises when the real trial happens, and his witnesses get cross-examined, defense witnesses testify to completely different facts than he chose to present to the GJ, and all the awkward stuff he left out of the GJ case crops up..

[I_B_Perky]

That was what POed DU-folk about the Michael Brown Grand Jury. The (local) prosecutor wanted any indictment to be a solid one, and thus presented more than just one side of the evidence. DU-folk wanted an indictment, justice be damned. But like I say so often, facts don't matter on DU.

There is that as well.  I am told that DA's will sometime use grand juries to cover their ass when they really have no case and are getting beat over the top of the head with political pressure.   Could not tell you if it is true or not.  Makes sense I suppose.

<<< not a blood sucking parasite lawyer and did not stay at a holiday inn last nite.   

[BattleHymn]

cynatnite (28,807 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029411819

I've served on a federal grand jury...

Was laserhaas was the prosecutor?

[I_B_Perky]

Grand juries see 'Nearly irrefutable evidence' because only the Prosecutor presents a case, and only the case he or she wants to present - no alternate interpretations, no contrary evidence, not even a peep allowed from the defense table...because the target and his defense counsel aren't allowed to BE there, unless the target is actually testifying, and then his counsel can only be there while he is on the stand.

Of course, this is exactly the sort of trial the DUmmies trust, as long as it comes out their way.  The old saying that 'You can indict a ham sandwich' is pretty accurate, the problem for the prosecutor arises when the real trial happens, and his witnesses get cross-examined, defense witnesses testify to completely different facts than he chose to present to the GJ, and all the awkward stuff he left out of the GJ case crops up..

Well I hope no DA indicts my ham sandwiches tonite cause I intend to eat them for lunch tomorrow.  That would really suck if they did that.   

[I_B_Perky]

Was laserhaas was the prosecutor?

 

H5 for that!!!

[zeitgeist]

Should read  I served  in a federal prison.   

[Drafe Hoblin]

A Fed Grand Jury is seated at 9 and is basically let-go in the 12 o'clock hour.  No tax-paid lunch.  That'd be ridiculous.

No phones.  You sit there and read something.  The prosecutors come out of the conference-room.  They present something. If they present a witness, you listen.  -Ask questions, if you want.  The prosecutors & company leave.  The replacement jurors leave.  The jury rates the charges.  Then the process repeats.

Some days there's nothing to vote on.  I think that's a huge reason why this new Jury was impaneled in that new district.  To use jurors who lived closer... and not have them driving halfway across the State to drink coffee and read magazines.  Jurors start getting really pissed. They'll vent their frustration at the prosecutors.

I'm speculating that Mueller and the leftwingers on the team will present any evidence 'in a leftwing framework'.  Not ignore exculpatory evidence.  That's too big of a high powered career-killer.  Attorneys are the world's most ardent backstabbers.     

[Maverick1987]

A Fed Grand Jury is seated at 9 and is basically let-go in the 12 o'clock hour.  No tax-paid lunch.  That'd be ridiculous.

No phones.  You sit there and read something.  The prosecutors come out of the conference-room.  They present something. If they present a witness, you listen.  -Ask questions, if you want.  The prosecutors & company leave.  The replacement jurors leave.  The jury rates the charges.  Then the process repeats.

Some days there's nothing to vote on.  I think that's a huge reason why this new Jury was impaneled in that new district.  To use jurors who lived closer... and not have them driving halfway across the State to drink coffee and read magazines.  Jurors start getting really pissed. They'll vent their frustration at the prosecutors.

I'm speculating that Mueller and the leftwingers on the team will present any evidence 'in a leftwing framework'.  Not ignore exculpatory evidence.  That's too big of a high powered career-killer.  Attorneys are the world's most ardent backstabbers.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Yes! 

[Ralph Wiggum]

https://youtu.be/pPd67CEL54E

[Old n Grumpy]

cynatnite (28,807 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029411819

I've served on a federal grand jury...

And I stayed at a Hampton Inn and the waffles were delicious!!

[I_B_Perky]

A Fed Grand Jury is seated at 9 and is basically let-go in the 12 o'clock hour.  No tax-paid lunch.  That'd be ridiculous.

No phones.  You sit there and read something.  The prosecutors come out of the conference-room.  They present something. If they present a witness, you listen.  -Ask questions, if you want.  The prosecutors & company leave.  The replacement jurors leave.  The jury rates the charges.  Then the process repeats.

Some days there's nothing to vote on.  I think that's a huge reason why this new Jury was impaneled in that new district. To use jurors who lived closer... and not have them driving halfway across the State to drink coffee and read magazines.  Jurors start getting really pissed. They'll vent their frustration at the prosecutors.

I'm speculating that Mueller and the leftwingers on the team will present any evidence 'in a leftwing framework'.  Not ignore exculpatory evidence.  That's too big of a high powered career-killer.  Attorneys are the world's most ardent backstabbers.   

I was thinking that it was because DC is more swampy liberal.

Location matters in my opinion.  Is it true? Dunno.

[Drafe Hoblin]

I was thinking that it was because DC is more swampy liberal.

Location matters in my opinion.  Is it true? Dunno.

You're talking 20-ish voters from last election, 15 jurors and 5 alternates, chosen randomly by computer... and are sworn-in.  No discussion about any of the evidence between presentations, nor at any other time...  No discussions 'outside' the jury-room with friends and family-members.  Forever. 

Mueller & his peeps won't present one version of a count.  It'll be
Felony Obstruction 1-A, 2-A. 1-B, etc...
Misdemeanor Obstruction 1-A, 2-B...
Mishandling of...
on down to the lowest...
Then the Clerk calls out your name to rate what the evidence should be charged as.
It never needs to unanimous in a Grand Jury.

So yeah, there could possibly be 15 Trump-hating Hilary-voters in the room.  But it'll become pretty damn obvious there's jury-misconduct afoot if every charge is the maximum for every piece of evidence.  If Mueller wants to risk ignoring the misconduct, versus the passage of time spent, he has only himself to blame for the eventual pro-Trump insurrection which will begin breaking-out across the Republic.

Starting with shutting-down the Interstate Highways into DC.  Then the rails.  So c'mon, Bob.  Bring it.   

[I_B_Perky]

You're talking 20-ish voters from last election, 15 jurors and 5 alternates, chosen randomly by computer... and are sworn-in.  No discussion about any of the evidence between presentations, nor at any other time...  No discussions 'outside' the jury-room with friends and family-members.  Forever. 

Mueller & his peeps won't present one version of a count.  It'll be
Felony Obstruction 1-A, 2-A. 1-B, etc...
Misdemeanor Obstruction 1-A, 2-B...
Mishandling of...
on down to the lowest...
Then the Clerk calls out your name to rate what the evidence should be charged as.
It never needs to unanimous in a Grand Jury.

So yeah, there could possibly be 15 Trump-hating Hilary-voters in the room.  But it'll become pretty damn obvious there's jury-misconduct afoot if every charge is the maximum for every piece of evidence.  If Mueller wants to risk ignoring the misconduct, versus the passage of time spent, he has only himself to blame for the eventual pro-Trump insurrection which will begin breaking-out across the Republic.

Starting with shutting-down the Interstate Highways into DC.  Then the rails.  So c'mon, Bob.  Bring it.   

Since the DC area went 90 percent hillary and President Trump only got 4 percent... I would guess the possibility of this being high.  Just my opinion here, not saying you are incorrect.   

[cmypay]

What would DU have to say if the grand jury indites Democrats???