The Associated Press reported that “ A grand jury in Washington refused Tuesday to indict Democratic lawmakers in connection with a video in which they urged U.S. military members to resist “illegal orders,”...The Justice Department opened an investigation into the video featuring Democratic Sens. Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin and four other Democratic lawmakers [ the other Democrats who appeared in the video include Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania] urging U.S. service members to follow established military protocols and reject orders they believe to be unlawful. All the lawmakers previously served in the military or at intelligence agencies.”
This refusal of a grand jury to indict upon the urging of Trump’s prosecutors follows on the heels of other grand jury rejections of Trump’s prosecutors’ attempts to charge felonies, including:
1. Letitia James (New York Attorney General) — alleged mortgage fraud (Virginia grand jury) Reuters reported that DOJ attempted to prosecute (and then re-try) the case and a grand jury rejected the proposed indictment. ABC likewise reported that a grand jury refused to indict James when DOJ attempted to revive the case. PBS reported a further failed attempt to re-indict, describing additional grand-jury refusals.
2. Federal grand juries in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. refused to approve felony charges in some cases involving alleged interference with federal law enforcement officers during protests, including a highly publicized instance of a person accused of throwing a sandwich at a federal agent.
3. A Chicago grand jury declined to indict a couple accused of assaulting federal officers outside an ICE facility, resulting in prosecutors dismissing the complaint (though they could seek charges again).
THE GRAND JURY IN HISTORY
The principles underlying the need for grand juries can be traced back to the Magna Carta in 1215, though the name had not yet evolved at that time. It was not until the 17th century in England that the employment of a grand jury matured into existence and became embedded into the English psyche as serving as an entity that screened charges before someone could be put to trial—one of the roots of the grand jury’s “buffer” role between the government and the accused.
The use of grand juries were carried over to the American colonies, in which one famous usage of the grand jury served as a model for future generations to come:
Colonial America: The Zenger Case (1735): In the now famous case of John Peter Zenger (New York, 1735), he was a printer charged with seditious libel for publishing criticism of New York’s royal governor. Two grand juries reportedly refused to indict him before the Crown secured charges through alternative means that resulted in Zenger’s acquittal. The case represented a powerful precedent for establishing a citizen’s buffer against unjust charges upon a ruler’s command and also for demonstrating early American resistance to criminalizing political criticism. (Sound familiar?)
The requirement for grand juries was later embodied in the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which requires that defendants may only be prosecuted for federal felonies upon the issuance of a grand jury Indictment. In the implementation of this Amendment, The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require a quorum of 16 grand jurors and no more than 23, of which at least 12 grand jurors must vote for an indictment.
Members of the grand jury, and trial jurors for that matter, are generally selected by lot among the community in which the alleged crime was committed or in which the trial is to be held (taking into account a possible change of venue due to adverse publicity against the defendant).
The point of all of this is that both grand jurors and trial jurors represent a cross section of the community’s residents and who bring their values, their principles, their integrity and their commitment to honesty, their common sense and their fairness with them into the room where they deliberate.
Grand jurors and trial jurors have often served as bulwarks against prosecutorial excesses , abuses , biases, political grand standing and as betrayers to their own profession whose fundamental principle requires them to strive to see that justice is done.
The above cases where grand jurors refused to indict political enemies of Donald J. Trump on trumped-up charges prove that our democracy works.
Let us all spread the word among our communities that those who are called to serve on grand juries and trial juries should be vigilant in insuring that no one be prosecuted or convicted for political reasons, or for exercising their Constitutional rights and that no one be convicted if they have a reasonable doubt as to their culpability.
One of my parents was a textbook sociopath and I have been in two relationships (including a marriage) with people who tried to undermine my sense of reality and self. What you and Danielle have described is something I’ve noticed: Trump and nis administration essentially want everyone in this country to have a similar relationship with them. “Don’t believe your eyes and ears. Believe me, I am trying to do what’s best for you.”
I too want to scream in the street! I am so appalled by Dump and his cronies, I can’t believe everyone else isn’t talking about it. How can they stand still and say or do nothing? Why do I have to be careful where I talk about this travesty because people get offended? The people who now support Metamucilini are definitely outright racists. Disgusting.
We need to focus & learn to bat the irrelevancies away. That is their primary weapon--as Steve Bannon said, "Flood the zone with shit." For instance, the SAVE act just passed the House. This tells us we have to learn to be more targeted & effective at threatening our elected officials. We'll get another chance with the Senate.
I heard you this morning. My cousin daughter tried on Facebook and found out the hard way about those trolls. I told her bring over your phone and we will get rid of them on YouTube. She wants to learn about Substack. I said we shall see, perhaps tomorrow or the next day. She is ill also, sinus congestion. Tuxedo Man says hello please congratulate Adam on his new child as I said he did a great job filling in for you. Danielle you always 🎸, out ! You both Speak truth to power. Please subscribe to The Good in us by Mary L. Trump. Also subscribe to The Dam Digest with Danielle Moodie.
OMG, thank you so much! I think a Collective scream would be awesome!
GRAND JURIES STAND UP TO TRUMP’S PERSECUTORS
The Associated Press reported that “ A grand jury in Washington refused Tuesday to indict Democratic lawmakers in connection with a video in which they urged U.S. military members to resist “illegal orders,”...The Justice Department opened an investigation into the video featuring Democratic Sens. Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin and four other Democratic lawmakers [ the other Democrats who appeared in the video include Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania] urging U.S. service members to follow established military protocols and reject orders they believe to be unlawful. All the lawmakers previously served in the military or at intelligence agencies.”
This refusal of a grand jury to indict upon the urging of Trump’s prosecutors follows on the heels of other grand jury rejections of Trump’s prosecutors’ attempts to charge felonies, including:
1. Letitia James (New York Attorney General) — alleged mortgage fraud (Virginia grand jury) Reuters reported that DOJ attempted to prosecute (and then re-try) the case and a grand jury rejected the proposed indictment. ABC likewise reported that a grand jury refused to indict James when DOJ attempted to revive the case. PBS reported a further failed attempt to re-indict, describing additional grand-jury refusals.
2. Federal grand juries in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. refused to approve felony charges in some cases involving alleged interference with federal law enforcement officers during protests, including a highly publicized instance of a person accused of throwing a sandwich at a federal agent.
3. A Chicago grand jury declined to indict a couple accused of assaulting federal officers outside an ICE facility, resulting in prosecutors dismissing the complaint (though they could seek charges again).
THE GRAND JURY IN HISTORY
The principles underlying the need for grand juries can be traced back to the Magna Carta in 1215, though the name had not yet evolved at that time. It was not until the 17th century in England that the employment of a grand jury matured into existence and became embedded into the English psyche as serving as an entity that screened charges before someone could be put to trial—one of the roots of the grand jury’s “buffer” role between the government and the accused.
The use of grand juries were carried over to the American colonies, in which one famous usage of the grand jury served as a model for future generations to come:
Colonial America: The Zenger Case (1735): In the now famous case of John Peter Zenger (New York, 1735), he was a printer charged with seditious libel for publishing criticism of New York’s royal governor. Two grand juries reportedly refused to indict him before the Crown secured charges through alternative means that resulted in Zenger’s acquittal. The case represented a powerful precedent for establishing a citizen’s buffer against unjust charges upon a ruler’s command and also for demonstrating early American resistance to criminalizing political criticism. (Sound familiar?)
The requirement for grand juries was later embodied in the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which requires that defendants may only be prosecuted for federal felonies upon the issuance of a grand jury Indictment. In the implementation of this Amendment, The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require a quorum of 16 grand jurors and no more than 23, of which at least 12 grand jurors must vote for an indictment.
Members of the grand jury, and trial jurors for that matter, are generally selected by lot among the community in which the alleged crime was committed or in which the trial is to be held (taking into account a possible change of venue due to adverse publicity against the defendant).
The point of all of this is that both grand jurors and trial jurors represent a cross section of the community’s residents and who bring their values, their principles, their integrity and their commitment to honesty, their common sense and their fairness with them into the room where they deliberate.
Grand jurors and trial jurors have often served as bulwarks against prosecutorial excesses , abuses , biases, political grand standing and as betrayers to their own profession whose fundamental principle requires them to strive to see that justice is done.
The above cases where grand jurors refused to indict political enemies of Donald J. Trump on trumped-up charges prove that our democracy works.
Let us all spread the word among our communities that those who are called to serve on grand juries and trial juries should be vigilant in insuring that no one be prosecuted or convicted for political reasons, or for exercising their Constitutional rights and that no one be convicted if they have a reasonable doubt as to their culpability.
Thank you for your civics lesson.💕🤘🏾
Mary, I hope you feel better soon.
One of my parents was a textbook sociopath and I have been in two relationships (including a marriage) with people who tried to undermine my sense of reality and self. What you and Danielle have described is something I’ve noticed: Trump and nis administration essentially want everyone in this country to have a similar relationship with them. “Don’t believe your eyes and ears. Believe me, I am trying to do what’s best for you.”
I too want to scream in the street! I am so appalled by Dump and his cronies, I can’t believe everyone else isn’t talking about it. How can they stand still and say or do nothing? Why do I have to be careful where I talk about this travesty because people get offended? The people who now support Metamucilini are definitely outright racists. Disgusting.
We need to focus & learn to bat the irrelevancies away. That is their primary weapon--as Steve Bannon said, "Flood the zone with shit." For instance, the SAVE act just passed the House. This tells us we have to learn to be more targeted & effective at threatening our elected officials. We'll get another chance with the Senate.
I heard you this morning. My cousin daughter tried on Facebook and found out the hard way about those trolls. I told her bring over your phone and we will get rid of them on YouTube. She wants to learn about Substack. I said we shall see, perhaps tomorrow or the next day. She is ill also, sinus congestion. Tuxedo Man says hello please congratulate Adam on his new child as I said he did a great job filling in for you. Danielle you always 🎸, out ! You both Speak truth to power. Please subscribe to The Good in us by Mary L. Trump. Also subscribe to The Dam Digest with Danielle Moodie.