My Concerns about Mueller's Grand Jury move.

[Captain Adverse]

There have been a couple of threads touting Mr. Mueller's empaneling a Grand Jury as a "good thing." Here's why I disagree.

One of our Forum peers pointed out in another thread that Federal Grand Juries indict 99.9% of the time, as if this fact supported the validity of this tool.

But people often confuse a Grand Jury with an impartial courtroom Jury. However, a courtroom jury's job is to sift through evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Meanwhile, a Grand Jury is a tool of the Prosecution used both to test out their case to see what will and will not fly if they try to take something to trial, and to generate public opinion in favor of their effort to prosecute.

Two problems:

1, There are no rules of evidence.

The Grand Jury can be shown (or demand to see) ANYTHING the Prosecutor can suggest might be of any interest for any reason at all.

2. There is no "defense." No presumption of innocence.

It is all Prosecution and it doesn't take much for a Prosecutor to convince any Grand Jury which way to vote...since it only requires a "supermajority," not a unanimous vote absent the presumption of innocence.

IMO that is the definition of a witch hunt. This is turning into just what I feared, when people demand an "independent investigation" of a politically motivated "suspicion." This is no longer a Russia Collusion investigation, it is now a "has he or anyone in his administration ever done something, anything," that could possibly be considered criminal (or at the very least unsavory) and therefore possible grounds for impeachment.

Even if the Prosecutor fails to convince a Grand Jury, i.e. that .1% figure noted by a Grand Jury failing to follow the Prosecutor's intent? The damage caused by whatever may come out that is not "criminal" but merely disturbing or titillating will still color that person forever.

But getting a grand jury indictment is empowering for the prosecution, as it convinces people previously undecided that perhaps there is something there, and justifies this belief in the minds of those already convinced they were right all along.

IMO empaneling a "Grand Jury" in this situation is a propaganda stunt designed to do exactly what many members of this Forum opposed to the results of the election have been crying for...implying the issue is so serious, so valid, so "grounded" in undiscovered truth that eventually the President will be shown to be as evilly "satanic" as any witch you have come to believe he must be and thus his demise is a certainty.

That is my concern about this whole effort.

 

[katzgar]

First, the use of IMO is bad english. Second your concern is based on Mueller being agenda driven which is not born out by everything known about the man.

 

[TheGoverness]

First, the use of IMO is bad english.

Uh, katzgar, you do realize that a whole lot of your posts are full of bad english, right?

 

[katzgar]

Uh, katzgar, you do realize that a whole lot of your posts are full of bad english, right?

Yep but that sort of thing doesn't matter around here

 

[TheGoverness]

Yep but that sort of thing doesn't matter around here

So then why did you even bring it up in the first place?

 

[countryboy]

Uh, katzgar, you do realize that a whole lot of your posts are full of bad english, right?

 

[sangha]

First, the use of IMO is bad english. Second your concern is based on Mueller being agenda driven which is not born out by everything known about the man.

Not just agenda driven. The agenda is supposedly to reveal that Trump is a satanically evil witch!!! :lamo

And I bet the Capt believes he posted a reasonable legal argument.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

There have been a couple of threads touting Mr. Mueller's empaneling a Grand Jury as a "good thing." Here's why I disagree.

One of our Forum peers pointed out in another thread that Federal Grand Juries indict 99.9% of the time, as if this fact supported the validity of this tool.

But people often confuse a Grand Jury with an impartial courtroom Jury. However, a courtroom jury's job is to sift through evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Meanwhile, a Grand Jury is a tool of the Prosecution used both to test out their case to see what will and will not fly if they try to take something to trial, and to generate public opinion in favor of their effort to prosecute.

Two problems:

1, There are no rules of evidence.

The Grand Jury can be shown (or demand to see) ANYTHING the Prosecutor can suggest might be of any interest for any reason at all.

2. There is no "defense." No presumption of innocence.

It is all Prosecution and it doesn't take much for a Prosecutor to convince any Grand Jury which way to vote...since it only requires a "supermajority," not a unanimous vote absent the presumption of innocence.

IMO that is the definition of a witch hunt. This is turning into just what I feared, when people demand an "independent investigation" of a politically motivated "suspicion." This is no longer a Russia Collusion investigation, it is now a "has he or anyone in his administration ever done something, anything," that could possibly be considered criminal (or at the very least unsavory) and therefore possible grounds for impeachment.

Even if the Prosecutor fails to convince a Grand Jury, i.e. that .1% figure noted by a Grand Jury failing to follow the Prosecutor's intent? The damage caused by whatever may come out that is not "criminal" but merely disturbing or titillating will still color that person forever.

But getting a grand jury indictment is empowering for the prosecution, as it convinces people previously undecided that perhaps there is something there, and justifies this belief in the minds of those already convinced they were right all along.

IMO empaneling a "Grand Jury" in this situation is a propaganda stunt designed to do exactly what many members of this Forum opposed to the results of the election have been crying for...implying the issue is so serious, so valid, so "grounded" in undiscovered truth that eventually the President will be shown to be as evilly "satanic" as any witch you have come to believe he must be and thus his demise is a certainty.

That is my concern about this whole effort.

Pity your opinion isn't backed up by anything in reality. And 'evilly satanic'? LOL! Please.

This is going to be a very painful time for some people.

 

[joG]

There have been a couple of threads touting Mr. Mueller's empaneling a Grand Jury as a "good thing." Here's why I disagree.

One of our Forum peers pointed out in another thread that Federal Grand Juries indict 99.9% of the time, as if this fact supported the validity of this tool.

But people often confuse a Grand Jury with an impartial courtroom Jury. However, a courtroom jury's job is to sift through evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Meanwhile, a Grand Jury is a tool of the Prosecution used both to test out their case to see what will and will not fly if they try to take something to trial, and to generate public opinion in favor of their effort to prosecute.

Two problems:

1, There are no rules of evidence.

The Grand Jury can be shown (or demand to see) ANYTHING the Prosecutor can suggest might be of any interest for any reason at all.

2. There is no "defense." No presumption of innocence.

It is all Prosecution and it doesn't take much for a Prosecutor to convince any Grand Jury which way to vote...since it only requires a "supermajority," not a unanimous vote absent the presumption of innocence.

IMO that is the definition of a witch hunt. This is turning into just what I feared, when people demand an "independent investigation" of a politically motivated "suspicion." This is no longer a Russia Collusion investigation, it is now a "has he or anyone in his administration ever done something, anything," that could possibly be considered criminal (or at the very least unsavory) and therefore possible grounds for impeachment.

Even if the Prosecutor fails to convince a Grand Jury, i.e. that .1% figure noted by a Grand Jury failing to follow the Prosecutor's intent? The damage caused by whatever may come out that is not "criminal" but merely disturbing or titillating will still color that person forever.

But getting a grand jury indictment is empowering for the prosecution, as it convinces people previously undecided that perhaps there is something there, and justifies this belief in the minds of those already convinced they were right all along.

IMO empaneling a "Grand Jury" in this situation is a propaganda stunt designed to do exactly what many members of this Forum opposed to the results of the election have been crying for...implying the issue is so serious, so valid, so "grounded" in undiscovered truth that eventually the President will be shown to be as evilly "satanic" as any witch you have come to believe he must be and thus his demise is a certainty.

That is my concern about this whole effort.

I don't think many in the Washington power elite want Trump to be President any longer than necessary. But I also can't see the majority wanting Mueller closing the books on his mandate with an outcome that yhe population considers illegitimate. That is, what I suspect to be the motivation for a GJ.

 

[MrWonka]

But getting a grand jury indictment is empowering for the prosecution, as it convinces people previously undecided that perhaps there is something there, and justifies this belief in the minds of those already convinced they were right all along.

Yes, the purpose of a Grand Jury is to insure that there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime before you actually take the serious step of doing it. This is to insure you don't go to trial without back up, lose the trial, and then lose the ability charge the person again if more evidence comes forward. It is also for the sake of the prosecution to insure that they're not letting their own personal bias influence the decision to bring charges.

Just because you are in denial about the obvious reality of the many crimes committed by this administration doesn't mean they didn't happen.

As a side note, Comey didn't bother to bring in a Grand Jury on Hillary Clinton which just goes to show you how little evidence there actually was against her. He knew damn well he could't convince a grand jury let alone a regular one.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If the intent of the GJ is to add "seriousness" to the allegations then it could well delay, rather than speed up, the process. The GJ process is to "test" presentation of the prosecution's "evidence" but, as you noted, lacks any defense or presentation (demanded at trial) of exculpatory evidence. Its main purpose is likely to tie Trump's financial dealings to the "collusion" theory thus opening up the SC's "mission" to further explore vast amounts of financial records (can we say lots of new leaks are in our future?).

Wrapping this SC investigation up long before the mid-terms is unlikely but expanding it (with GJ subpoena approval?) to permit examination of allegedly related but yet to be discovered financial "evidence" is a likely outcome. My prediction stands - the SC investigation will reach its high point just before the mid-terms in order to inflict maximum political damage, until then we will continue to get a steady stream of leaks to assure us that some fire must be behind all of that smoke.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, the purpose of a Grand Jury is to insure that there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime before you actually take the serious step of doing it. This is to insure you don't go to trial without back up, lose the trial, and then lose the ability charge the person again if more evidence comes forward. It is also for the sake of the prosecution to insure that they're not letting their own personal bias influence the decision to bring charges.

Just because you are in denial about the obvious reality of the many crimes committed by this administration doesn't mean they didn't happen.

As a side note, Comey didn't bother to bring in a Grand Jury on Hillary Clinton which just goes to show you how little evidence there actually was against her. He knew damn well he could't convince a grand jury let alone a regular one.

Comey was not a prosecutor (AG or DAG) even if he decided to play one to protect those that were in that position.

 

[Mr Person]

There have been a couple of threads touting Mr. Mueller's empaneling a Grand Jury as a "good thing." Here's why I disagree.

One of our Forum peers pointed out in another thread that Federal Grand Juries indict 99.9% of the time, as if this fact supported the validity of this tool.

But people often confuse a Grand Jury with an impartial courtroom Jury. However, a courtroom jury's job is to sift through evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Meanwhile, a Grand Jury is a tool of the Prosecution used both to test out their case to see what will and will not fly if they try to take something to trial, and to generate public opinion in favor of their effort to prosecute.

Two problems:

1, There are no rules of evidence.

The Grand Jury can be shown (or demand to see) ANYTHING the Prosecutor can suggest might be of any interest for any reason at all.

2. There is no "defense." No presumption of innocence.

It is all Prosecution and it doesn't take much for a Prosecutor to convince any Grand Jury which way to vote...since it only requires a "supermajority," not a unanimous vote absent the presumption of innocence.

IMO that is the definition of a witch hunt. This is turning into just what I feared, when people demand an "independent investigation" of a politically motivated "suspicion." This is no longer a Russia Collusion investigation, it is now a "has he or anyone in his administration ever done something, anything," that could possibly be considered criminal (or at the very least unsavory) and therefore possible grounds for impeachment.

Even if the Prosecutor fails to convince a Grand Jury, i.e. that .1% figure noted by a Grand Jury failing to follow the Prosecutor's intent? The damage caused by whatever may come out that is not "criminal" but merely disturbing or titillating will still color that person forever.

But getting a grand jury indictment is empowering for the prosecution, as it convinces people previously undecided that perhaps there is something there, and justifies this belief in the minds of those already convinced they were right all along.

IMO empaneling a "Grand Jury" in this situation is a propaganda stunt designed to do exactly what many members of this Forum opposed to the results of the election have been crying for...implying the issue is so serious, so valid, so "grounded" in undiscovered truth that eventually the President will be shown to be as evilly "satanic" as any witch you have come to believe he must be and thus his demise is a certainty.

That is my concern about this whole effort.

You seem to have overlooked a central flaw in this little argument: you are arguing that Mueller's grand jury in particular is bad, but in making that argument you only rely for factual statements on broad assertions applicable to grand juries generally.

Your argument is incoherent unless you are trying to attack the grand jury process in its entirety, not the Meuller grand jury and only the Meuller grand jury. General statements about grand juries do not demonstrate that Mueller's grand jury in particular is a "witch hunt" or evidence of one. It seems like you used a whole lot of words to try to cloak this problem.

What you really meant to say is that you want to believe that every indication of potential wrongdoing related to Trump should be ignored. That has nothing to do with wikipedia facts about grand juries in general.






(You're also wrong in some of them. "Meanwhile, a Grand Jury is a tool of the Prosecution used both to test out their case to see what will and will not fly if they try to take something to trial, and to generate public opinion in favor of their effort to prosecute." Nope. A grand jury is a constitutional requirement for federal trials designed to prevent the prosecution from bringing truly frivolous prosecutions.

The prosecution doesn't use it to see what flies. They do not think to themselves "oh, this is probably a garbage theory, but hey let's just see what the grand jury does because it's a grand jury!" They have limited resources. They always present what they think is their best case. They just have an easier time before a GJ than the eventual trial.

The prosecution uses grand juries because they must use it in a federal case if they want to proceed. And although there are a few limitations on what they can do, they generally just present the most damning case they can to get indictments. Then they try to pressure a plea deal or, if they have to, go to trial.

So much for that obfuscation.)

 

[RickJames3000]

There have been a couple of threads touting Mr. Mueller's empaneling a Grand Jury as a "good thing." Here's why I disagree.

It's amusing when people like you only find flaws in our justice system when your cult hero is "attacked".:roll:

 

[MrWonka]

Comey was not a prosecutor (AG or DAG) even if he decided to play one to protect those that were in that position.

Yes, and he didn't even bother to recommend the actual AG or DAG convene a grand jury. Your point is irrelevant.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

If the intent of the GJ is to add "seriousness" to the allegations then it could well delay, rather than speed up, the process. The GJ process is to "test" presentation of the prosecution's "evidence" but, as you noted, lacks any defense or presentation (demanded at trial) of exculpatory evidence. Its main purpose is likely to tie Trump's financial dealings to the "collusion" theory thus opening up the SC's "mission" to further explore vast amounts of financial records (can we say lots of new leaks are in our future?).

Wrapping this SC investigation up long before the mid-terms is unlikely but expanding it (with GJ subpoena approval?) to permit examination of allegedly related but yet to be discovered financial "evidence" is a likely outcome. My prediction stands - the SC investigation will reach its high point just before the mid-terms in order to inflict maximum political damage, until then we will continue to get a steady stream of leaks to assure us that some fire must be behind all of that smoke.

Trump's organization has already been fined for money laundering. With Russians. He's got a history of it, and we currently have no clear idea of what's already been discovered.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

You seem to have overlooked a central flaw in this little argument: you are arguing that Mueller's grand jury in particular is bad, but in making that argument you only rely for factual statements on broad assertions applicable to grand juries generally.

Your argument is incoherent unless you are trying to attack the grand jury process in its entirety, not the Meuller grand jury and only the Meuller grand jury. General statements about grand juries do not demonstrate that Mueller's grand jury in particular is a "witch hunt" or evidence of one. It seems like you used a whole lot of words to try to cloak this problem.

What you really meant to say is that you want to believe that every indication of potential wrongdoing related to Trump should be ignored. That has nothing to do with wikipedia facts about grand juries in general.






(You're also wrong in some of them. "Meanwhile, a Grand Jury is a tool of the Prosecution used both to test out their case to see what will and will not fly if they try to take something to trial, and to generate public opinion in favor of their effort to prosecute." Nope. A grand jury is a constitutional requirement for federal trials designed to prevent the prosecution from bringing truly frivolous prosecutions.

The prosecution doesn't use it to see what flies. They do not think to themselves "oh, this is probably a garbage theory, but hey let's just see what the grand jury does because it's a grand jury!" They have limited resources. They always present what they think is their best case. They just have an easier time before a GJ than the eventual trial.

The prosecution uses grand juries because they must use it in a federal case if they want to proceed. And although there are a few limitations on what they can do, they generally just present the most damning case they can to get indictments. Then they try to pressure a plea deal or, if they have to, go to trial.

So much for that obfuscation.)

Quite, you! You'll absolutely RUIN the false narrative and expose the manufactured outrage!

 

[PLizzy]

Your note about facts that are questionable but not criminal is exactly the kind of thing that probably got Trump into this mess in the first place, and it's what almost brought down Clinton.

If there is an investigation that has probable cause to be pursued, it is not acceptable for one to interfere in that investigation (obstruct) simply because embarrassing/political damaging facts might be uncovered about the individual in question. I can do it, you can't do it, nor can the president.

That's what Clinton did in Monicagate. He didn't want his relationship with a college intern to be revealed because of how it might damage him politically, so he abused his presidential power and lied under oath about the relationship - which is a crime. He would have been better off to have simply bitten the bullet, and told the truth.

I suspect that's what Trump has done. When he got wind the Russia probe into his campaign was kicking into high gear, he grew concerned it would reveal damaging information concerning his financial ties with Russia, that could be seen by many as a conflict of interest. So he's done the dumbest thing he could have by firing the FBI director, directly admitting the motive on TV, asking other intelligence heads to clear him, and intimidating everyone and anyone that pursues the case.

It's a clear cut case of obstruction of justice, just like those of Nixon and Clinton. Will it bring him down? It depends on how behaves under oath, and what other things are revealed in the future.

 

[Redress]

There have been a couple of threads touting Mr. Mueller's empaneling a Grand Jury as a "good thing." Here's why I disagree.

One of our Forum peers pointed out in another thread that Federal Grand Juries indict 99.9% of the time, as if this fact supported the validity of this tool.

But people often confuse a Grand Jury with an impartial courtroom Jury. However, a courtroom jury's job is to sift through evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Meanwhile, a Grand Jury is a tool of the Prosecution used both to test out their case to see what will and will not fly if they try to take something to trial, and to generate public opinion in favor of their effort to prosecute.

Two problems:

1, There are no rules of evidence.

The Grand Jury can be shown (or demand to see) ANYTHING the Prosecutor can suggest might be of any interest for any reason at all.

2. There is no "defense." No presumption of innocence.

It is all Prosecution and it doesn't take much for a Prosecutor to convince any Grand Jury which way to vote...since it only requires a "supermajority," not a unanimous vote absent the presumption of innocence.

IMO that is the definition of a witch hunt. This is turning into just what I feared, when people demand an "independent investigation" of a politically motivated "suspicion." This is no longer a Russia Collusion investigation, it is now a "has he or anyone in his administration ever done something, anything," that could possibly be considered criminal (or at the very least unsavory) and therefore possible grounds for impeachment.

Even if the Prosecutor fails to convince a Grand Jury, i.e. that .1% figure noted by a Grand Jury failing to follow the Prosecutor's intent? The damage caused by whatever may come out that is not "criminal" but merely disturbing or titillating will still color that person forever.

But getting a grand jury indictment is empowering for the prosecution, as it convinces people previously undecided that perhaps there is something there, and justifies this belief in the minds of those already convinced they were right all along.

IMO empaneling a "Grand Jury" in this situation is a propaganda stunt designed to do exactly what many members of this Forum opposed to the results of the election have been crying for...implying the issue is so serious, so valid, so "grounded" in undiscovered truth that eventually the President will be shown to be as evilly "satanic" as any witch you have come to believe he must be and thus his demise is a certainty.

That is my concern about this whole effort.

Well, that is an amazingly ****ty argument. Investigation now means witch hunt, people who are not charged with crimes are now unable to defend themselves(against what? being investigated?), all the evidence of Russian interference in the election is "politically motivated", and lots of talk about indictments which there is no evidence will even be sought yet. Your argument boils down to you don't like the Grand Jury being empaneled because it will investigate stuff you don't want investigated for your own political motivations. The answer to that is too bad, when there is evidence of crimes having been committed, we investigate, even when that investigation involves your hero.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, and he didn't even bother to recommend the actual AG or DAG convene a grand jury. Your point is irrelevant.

My point is completely relevant - would you accept a police chief's "recommendation" not to seek charges on any politician or fellow officer alleged to have violated the law? If Trump's appointed FBI director said just drop this whole "collusion" thing would you accept that "recommendation" as well?

 

[fmw]

There have been a couple of threads touting Mr. Mueller's empaneling a Grand Jury as a "good thing." Here's why I disagree.

One of our Forum peers pointed out in another thread that Federal Grand Juries indict 99.9% of the time, as if this fact supported the validity of this tool.

But people often confuse a Grand Jury with an impartial courtroom Jury. However, a courtroom jury's job is to sift through evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Meanwhile, a Grand Jury is a tool of the Prosecution used both to test out their case to see what will and will not fly if they try to take something to trial, and to generate public opinion in favor of their effort to prosecute.

Two problems:

1, There are no rules of evidence.

The Grand Jury can be shown (or demand to see) ANYTHING the Prosecutor can suggest might be of any interest for any reason at all.

2. There is no "defense." No presumption of innocence.

It is all Prosecution and it doesn't take much for a Prosecutor to convince any Grand Jury which way to vote...since it only requires a "supermajority," not a unanimous vote absent the presumption of innocence.

IMO that is the definition of a witch hunt. This is turning into just what I feared, when people demand an "independent investigation" of a politically motivated "suspicion." This is no longer a Russia Collusion investigation, it is now a "has he or anyone in his administration ever done something, anything," that could possibly be considered criminal (or at the very least unsavory) and therefore possible grounds for impeachment.

Even if the Prosecutor fails to convince a Grand Jury, i.e. that .1% figure noted by a Grand Jury failing to follow the Prosecutor's intent? The damage caused by whatever may come out that is not "criminal" but merely disturbing or titillating will still color that person forever.

But getting a grand jury indictment is empowering for the prosecution, as it convinces people previously undecided that perhaps there is something there, and justifies this belief in the minds of those already convinced they were right all along.

IMO empaneling a "Grand Jury" in this situation is a propaganda stunt designed to do exactly what many members of this Forum opposed to the results of the election have been crying for...implying the issue is so serious, so valid, so "grounded" in undiscovered truth that eventually the President will be shown to be as evilly "satanic" as any witch you have come to believe he must be and thus his demise is a certainty.

That is my concern about this whole effort.

What? You see potential problems with an investigation looking for a crime?

 

[Redress]

If the intent of the GJ is to add "seriousness" to the allegations then it could well delay, rather than speed up, the process. The GJ process is to "test" presentation of the prosecution's "evidence" but, as you noted, lacks any defense or presentation (demanded at trial) of exculpatory evidence. Its main purpose is likely to tie Trump's financial dealings to the "collusion" theory thus opening up the SC's "mission" to further explore vast amounts of financial records (can we say lots of new leaks are in our future?).

Wrapping this SC investigation up long before the mid-terms is unlikely but expanding it (with GJ subpoena approval?) to permit examination of allegedly related but yet to be discovered financial "evidence" is a likely outcome. My prediction stands - the SC investigation will reach its high point just before the mid-terms in order to inflict maximum political damage, until then we will continue to get a steady stream of leaks to assure us that some fire must be behind all of that smoke.

At this point in time, the purpose of the Grand Jury is probably subpoenas and compelling testimony. More than likely, no indictments will be sought until significantly later in the investigation.

Your second paragraph is simply conspiracy nonsense based on no evidence and what you would do if it was a democratic administration being investigated...

 

[ttwtt78640]

At this point in time, the purpose of the Grand Jury is probably subpoenas and compelling testimony. More than likely, no indictments will be sought until significantly later in the investigation.

Your second paragraph is simply conspiracy nonsense based on no evidence and what you would do if it was a democratic administration being investigated...

Hmm... you say that delay is expected yet when I say so it is "conspiracy nonsense". Was it not the SC who said (about a month ago) that this investigation would take about 3 months? I stand by my prediction of when this SC investigation will start to heat up.

 

[Carleen]

There have been a couple of threads touting Mr. Mueller's empaneling a Grand Jury as a "good thing." Here's why I disagree.

One of our Forum peers pointed out in another thread that Federal Grand Juries indict 99.9% of the time, as if this fact supported the validity of this tool.

But people often confuse a Grand Jury with an impartial courtroom Jury. However, a courtroom jury's job is to sift through evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Meanwhile, a Grand Jury is a tool of the Prosecution used both to test out their case to see what will and will not fly if they try to take something to trial, and to generate public opinion in favor of their effort to prosecute.

Two problems:

1, There are no rules of evidence.

The Grand Jury can be shown (or demand to see) ANYTHING the Prosecutor can suggest might be of any interest for any reason at all.

2. There is no "defense." No presumption of innocence.

It is all Prosecution and it doesn't take much for a Prosecutor to convince any Grand Jury which way to vote...since it only requires a "supermajority," not a unanimous vote absent the presumption of innocence.

IMO that is the definition of a witch hunt. This is turning into just what I feared, when people demand an "independent investigation" of a politically motivated "suspicion." This is no longer a Russia Collusion investigation, it is now a "has he or anyone in his administration ever done something, anything," that could possibly be considered criminal (or at the very least unsavory) and therefore possible grounds for impeachment.

Even if the Prosecutor fails to convince a Grand Jury, i.e. that .1% figure noted by a Grand Jury failing to follow the Prosecutor's intent? The damage caused by whatever may come out that is not "criminal" but merely disturbing or titillating will still color that person forever.

But getting a grand jury indictment is empowering for the prosecution, as it convinces people previously undecided that perhaps there is something there, and justifies this belief in the minds of those already convinced they were right all along.

IMO empaneling a "Grand Jury" in this situation is a propaganda stunt designed to do exactly what many members of this Forum opposed to the results of the election have been crying for...implying the issue is so serious, so valid, so "grounded" in undiscovered truth that eventually the President will be shown to be as evilly "satanic" as any witch you have come to believe he must be and thus his demise is a certainty.

That is my concern about this whole effort.

Keep this in mind. This all started with Trump stating that he fired Comey because of Russia allegations about the election.

 

[Redress]

Hmm... you say that delay is expected yet when I say so it is "conspiracy nonsense". Was it not the SC who said (about a month ago) that this investigation would take about 3 months? I stand by my prediction of when this SC investigation will start to heat up.

Can you source that please? I have not heard any one make that claim and it sounds profoundly unlikely.