3 ms·

NY grand juries (regular people) do all of the actual work without prompting from the DA. The only thing the DA does is provide witnesses and physical evidence

NY grand juries (regular people) do all of the actual work without prompting from the DA. The only thing the DA does is provide witnesses and physical evidence and read the laws relating to the evidence. The grand jury asks all the questions of the witnesses and reviews all the evidence. Then they vote to indict or not in private. The DA asks if they voted and how. They report their votes. At no point is the DA coercing anyone to vote a certain way, which would be illegal. At no point are jurors discussing the case with anyone outside the jury room (also illegal). The rumors are there are dozens of indictments, each one based on evidence and witness testimony. There’s this huge cloud of politicization over this, but the reality is Trump, his attorney, and possibly others committed crimes and this grand jury is holding him accountable. As law-abiding citizens, is this not what we expect and has it not been the foundation of our judicial system for 247 years? Or is a former president simply immune from our laws and judicial processes?

ChicagoDave 4y ago
I suppose the political argument would be that the DA manufactured evidence and coached witnesses what to say in order to “get Trump.” But there are dozens of people involved in a grand jury and there is just no way to manufacture anything without it becoming public knowledge. Someone in the NYC AD office is very likely a Trump voter and they’d never play along. This is just a standard legal process with an extraordinary target.
blunder_chess 4y ago
> As law-abiding citizens, is this not what we expect and has it not been the foundation of our judicial system for 247 years? Not to cut against your point, but just want to clarify that 247 years ago was 1776, which is not when our judicial system was founded. The first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, wasn't ratified until 1781 and did not include a judiciary. The second constitution, which created the judicial branch, didn't go into effect until March 4, 1789. Subsequently, the judicial system was established by the Judiciary Act on September 24, 1789.
- ChicagoDave 4y ago
  Thanks for the clarification!
tim333 4y ago
No great fan of Trump but the case against him seems weak. The law should be there to prosecute criminals, not to have a go at politicians you don't like.
fuzzfactor 4y ago
>the reality is Trump, his attorney, and possibly others committed crimes and this grand jury is holding him accountable. >As law-abiding citizens, is this not what we expect and has it not been the foundation of our judicial system for 247 years? Well it's what I've been expecting for 50 years, ever since he started coming to South Florida in the 1970's as a quintessential unknown fake millionaire, where the locals recognized right away what his still-strongest defining characteristics were; that he cheats at golf and couldn't be trusted in a real estate deal. You should have seen what it said in our local paper (The National Enquirer) way before he was on TV, when he was associated with only scandals and bankruptcy. This was a known gossip tabloid and some things might have been exaggerated but surely even more things made it under the radar and were never reported at all. For a few years now I've been wondering where the archives for the National Enquirer are anyway. It would give today's reporters a lot of potential ideas of people who still might be good to talk to. Now in the 21st century he's still the furthest thing from a life-long Republican, and could never reach high enough to even shine the shoes of Ronald Reagan who was more of an actor than a president himself. And if you want to invoke great Republican Presidents like Eisenhower or something, ask yourself if you were a Republican what kind of person would you rather vote for, Honest Abe or Dishonest Don?

ChicagoDave 4y ago

I suppose the political argument would be that the DA manufactured evidence and coached witnesses what to say in order to “get Trump.” But there are dozens of people involved in a grand jury and there is just no way to manufacture anything without it becoming public knowledge. Someone in the NYC AD office is very likely a Trump voter and they’d never play along. This is just a standard legal process with an extraordinary target.

blunder_chess 4y ago

> As law-abiding citizens, is this not what we expect and has it not been the foundation of our judicial system for 247 years? Not to cut against your point, but just want to clarify that 247 years ago was 1776, which is not when our judicial system was founded. The first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, wasn't ratified until 1781 and did not include a judiciary. The second constitution, which created the judicial branch, didn't go into effect until March 4, 1789. Subsequently, the judicial system was established by the Judiciary Act on September 24, 1789.

ChicagoDave 4y ago
Thanks for the clarification!

tim333 4y ago

No great fan of Trump but the case against him seems weak. The law should be there to prosecute criminals, not to have a go at politicians you don't like.

fuzzfactor 4y ago

>the reality is Trump, his attorney, and possibly others committed crimes and this grand jury is holding him accountable. >As law-abiding citizens, is this not what we expect and has it not been the foundation of our judicial system for 247 years? Well it's what I've been expecting for 50 years, ever since he started coming to South Florida in the 1970's as a quintessential unknown fake millionaire, where the locals recognized right away what his still-strongest defining characteristics were; that he cheats at golf and couldn't be trusted in a real estate deal. You should have seen what it said in our local paper (The National Enquirer) way before he was on TV, when he was associated with only scandals and bankruptcy. This was a known gossip tabloid and some things might have been exaggerated but surely even more things made it under the radar and were never reported at all. For a few years now I've been wondering where the archives for the National Enquirer are anyway. It would give today's reporters a lot of potential ideas of people who still might be good to talk to. Now in the 21st century he's still the furthest thing from a life-long Republican, and could never reach high enough to even shine the shoes of Ronald Reagan who was more of an actor than a president himself. And if you want to invoke great Republican Presidents like Eisenhower or something, ask yourself if you were a Republican what kind of person would you rather vote for, Honest Abe or Dishonest Don?