General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe importance of juries. Serving is a solemn responsibility.
Just wanted to give a "SHOUT OUT" to the Grand Jury who followed the law, and, in spite of efforts by Bill Barr, REFUSED TO "TRUE BILL" (indict) charges against Andrew McCabe.
If we are going to save out democratic republic, it may come down to juries....common citizens...to stop the machinery of tyrany by killing political prosecutions in the crib, and using jury nullification when trials are unfairly biased.
Next time YOU get a jury duty summons, take it seriuosly and understand that peer-juries are the firewall against political prosecutions.
old guy
(3,283 posts)jimfields33
(15,978 posts)Sitting on juries. I got a check for 52 dollars for a week of jury duty. I did get paid by my employee, but some dont. If I didnt get my regular pay, it would have financially hurt big time.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,902 posts)It's disheartening the extent to which so many people do all they can to get out of jury duty.
It's likewise disheartening to me that once, and only once in my life so far have I been called for jury duty.
abqtommy
(14,118 posts)recommend to everyone.
hunter
(38,328 posts)I always show up for jury duty, and have sat in the jury box during the selection process, but I've never been selected to serve on a jury.
I've been rejected by both prosecution and defense.
Things always go wrong when I start answering their questions.
Thunderbeast
(3,419 posts)It was a sobering window into society.
I agree that jury pay needs to be raised. The only folks who serve are those with supporting employers or retirees.
The jurors had names like Josh and Barbara. The defendants had names like Jamal and Jose. If we want peer-jurors, we need to make it possible for a broader cross-section of the population to serve.
Bettie
(16,129 posts)though, our county is pretty small, so it is unlikely that I'll even have to go to the courthouse!
former9thward
(32,082 posts)Where is the evidence this matter was ever put before a grand jury?
Thunderbeast
(3,419 posts)former9thward
(32,082 posts)When there is only one person making a report which would be of interest to hundreds of news outlet and no one else is saying it, it usually means something.
Thunderbeast
(3,419 posts)The investigation WAS dropped. Maddow has a pretty good research team.
One of three things happened:
1. The prosecutors could not convince a Grand Jury to indict.
2. The prosecutors could not convince a presiding judge of probable cause.
3. Prosecutors themselves did not have enough evidence to indict a winnable case.
Maddow's research described option one as the reason...commenting on how rare it is to "NO TRUE BILL" a case, yet she claims it happened here.
In any case, the charges were deemed un-indictable, and after arguments from the defense team, the judge halted prosecution after many delays from the DOJ.
Ask her!
https://www.google.com/amp/www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/send-it-rachel/amp
former9thward
(32,082 posts)If you wish to believe one person out of hundreds. Your choice....
Thunderbeast
(3,419 posts)csziggy
(34,138 posts)By Quinta Jurecic, Benjamin Wittes
Friday, September 13, 2019, 4:37 PM
https://www.lawfareblog.com/mystery-mccabe-grand-jury
By Paul Rosenzweig
Monday, September 23, 2019, 1:33 PM
https://www.lawfareblog.com/grand-jury-secrecy-contempt-and-mccabe-investigation
CNN Digital Rebranding 2015 David Shortell Photo: Jeremy Freeman
By David Shortell, CNN
Updated 1:47 PM ET, Fri September 13, 2019
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/13/politics/fbi-mccabe-grand-jury/index.html
By JOSH GERSTEIN
11/13/2019 11:54 AM EST
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/13/andrew-mccabe-justice-department-070527
If you don't like those, there are many, many more on the subject from early September 2019 on.
former9thward
(32,082 posts)There is no evidence this was turned over to a GJ and they refused to indict.
csziggy
(34,138 posts)Lisa Page, a former senior aide to McCabe and the official he directed to disclose information about the Clinton Foundation probe to the newspaper, told a grand jury that McCabe had no motive to lie about the disclosure because he was authorized as the FBI's number two to make them, according to a person familiar with the situation.
Because grand juries are secret, it is hard to verify what has happened - but that at least one known witness has testified in front of a grand jury about the McCabe investigation and that there has been speculation for months with no indictment obtained, I think Rachel Maddow's story is likely correct.
The September 23 article from LawFare concludes:
Maybe. To begin with, as I read the reporting, the return of no true bill has yet to be confirmed explicitly. We can infer that fact from the publicly reported promise of an imminent indictment, the meeting of the grand jury, and the failure of any true bill of indictment to be publicly returned. Such an event, if it has occurred, and if it were publicly disclosed would clearly satisfy the first prong of the prima facie test for a violation of Rule 6(e). The presentation of a bill of indictment and the vote on it would manifestly be matters that occurred before the grand jury.
To date, the news articles are likewise ambiguous as to the second prong of the prima facie casethat the information disclosed was disclosed by an attorney or agent of the government. None of the news articles that Ive read make such a claim explicitly. To be sure, it is a reasonable inference that government attorneys are the source of this information, as they are the only people likely to have the information in the first place. And that inference is probably enough to make out a prima facie case, whose proof standard is, after all, rather low.
And so, even at this juncture, it seems to me that the chief judge supervising the grand jury has grounds to inquire if she wishes to do so. The case for doing so will be stronger still if (or when) a more well-sourced news report is published. And in that case, the show cause proceedings will be interesting indeed.
former9thward
(32,082 posts)no media said it was because a GJ refused to indict. None. You can google and none did. We would know if that was the case. It would leak instantly.
csziggy
(34,138 posts)But that Barr kept trying to invent a case. Since he was unable to, the DOJ just now finally announced they were giving up on persecuting McCabe - and I use that word on purpose.