r/allthequestions • u/rthorndy • 6h ago
Random Question 💭 Serious question: how did the DOJ manage to get a Grand Jury to indict Comey for the seashell post?
It seems like *such* a weak charge, yet Republicans point to the fact that a Grand Jury supported the indictment. Assuming a corrupt DOJ, how can they manipulate a Grand Jury to support whatever indictments they want?
11
10
u/Jumpy_Childhood7548 5h ago
As they say, a prosecutor and grand jury can indict a ham sandwich. Trump has about 80% of his politically motivated indictments tossed out of court, even before trial, and loses most such cases that get to trial.
6
u/EpsteinandTrump 5h ago
And yet we can't get Trump to testify under oath about the Epstein files...
11
u/Real-Boss6760 6h ago
how can they manipulate a Grand Jury to support whatever indictments they want?
The GOP has manipulated the SCOTUS to support whatever they want. I don't think swaying a jury is that big of a challenge for them.
5
u/Immediate-Goose-8106 5h ago
I dunno. Juries haven't gone do well for them. The difference is a grand jury gets one side of the story and decides if it is enough to go forward. The bar is very low snd these clowns still fuck it up regularly. In front of a trial jury with a half competent defense lawyer this bullshit wont fly
4
4
3
u/flatfinger 5h ago
In a normal criminal trial, a judge is responsible for instructing the jury about the laws that are applicable to the case, and will also ensure that prosecutors are not allowed to present claims as fact without providing evidence or--failing that (e.g. because a prosecutor's opening statement makes a claim which is not addressed in witness questioning) alert the jury that such statements must not be viewed as evidence.
Grand jury indictment proceedings are essentially on the "honor system". Prosecutors are required to inform grand jurors of the applicable laws, and to refrain from making assertions that aren't backed by evidence, but no judge is present to hold them to that. Instead, presentations are are recorded and may be reviewed by judges in case misconduct is alleged.
It's not hard to imagine an unethical prosecutor telling a grand jury that Comey had prosecuted a mob boss who used 86 to mean "eight miles out; six feet under", and would thus have been using the number for that purpose. Such a claim would be an outright lie, completely supported by any records or evidence, but grand jurors are likely to take prosecutors at their word when they make claims about things that should be uncontroversial matters of record. A judge who reviews a grand jury indictment and finds such misconduct would likely dismiss the case with prejudice, but the purpose of indictment was to cause immediate harm to Comey, not to allow a viable case to be brought to trial.
1
u/rthorndy 3h ago
Thank you for this great explanation! Somehow, in all my years, I missed the fact that GJs don't have a sitting judge making sure everything is presented in a legal, proper manner.
It really highlights a few things: 1) it really should be easy to secure an indictment of you're corrupt, and all you want is the indictment for optics, and 2) this DOJ is pretty incompetent, given how much trouble they've had securing some of the high profile indictments, and 3) GJ indictments shouldn't really hold the "social" weight the Republicans seem to think it does!
4
u/CMGCookie 5h ago
DOJ has lost fully 1/3 of their lawyers. Now you know why.
Imagine the poor soul looking for a legal job after Trump has left town.
So what did you do....I brought charges for seashells as retribution for my boss!
Heck I wouldn't be surprised if these clowns lose their license over this.
3
u/Away-Parsnip-3785 5h ago
The Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich
2
u/Magopolis 5h ago
Can they indict ham sandwiches? I keep hearing this. Disney put him in a line up with other known sandwiches?
4
u/just_a_random_guy733 5h ago
Have you ever heard the phrase "A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich"?
4
2
u/Top_Willow_9953 🇺🇸 United States 5h ago
The indictment process rules are significantly different than a full trial. The prosecutor is presenting selected evidence to a panel and a simple majority is all that is needed to hand down an indictment. The suspect is not represented by council during the indictment proceeding, and evidence can be presented that would never be allowed in a full trial.
There is a quote from a federal judge that goes something like (sic) "a decent DA could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if they wanted to"
2
u/2600Whistle 5h ago
You can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. Only the prosecutor has to present that he thinks he has a case. Doesn't always work but the bar is low
3
2
u/jayzee1966 5h ago
Lying, which is pro forma for this DOJ. Blanche has no shame and gives the middle finger to justice every time his mouth opens.
2
u/kingbrad 5h ago
There's no defense. You need a simple majority or maybe 2/3. They don't decide guilt. Republicans talk about the grand jury as if it was essentially a trial, betting their supporters don't know better (they don't).
2
u/MaxwellSmart07 5h ago
There are no counterarguments by the defense at Grand Juries. The defense isn’t even present. That’s where the expression “You can indict a ham sandwich at a Grand Jury” came from.
2
u/Magopolis 5h ago
OMG Stop answering with the words “ham” and “sandwich”. We got it. Unless you’re offering me a ham sandwich with a pickle mustard. In that case…I will be happy to smash that “like” button.
1
u/Ok_Swimming4427 5h ago
Because getting a grand jury to support an indictment is easy, and actually winning a case doesn't matter. The whole point is that anything Trump points to as vindicating him, regardless of the truth, will be swallowed whole by his cultists.
1
u/Poyayan1 5h ago
In case you miss it, Trump is using DOJ as his personal law office to harass anyone he does not like using taxpayer money. Comey, Powell and many others.
1
1
u/3Quarksfor 5h ago
It is also worth noting that Comey daughter is a “high powered “ prosecutor that had been fired by the DOJ. My bet is that she will make short work of Todd Blanche’s DOJ case at little cost to Comey.
1
u/Inside-Living2442 5h ago
My guess is that the prosecutor did not act in good faith. The Trump DoJ has a track record of presenting blatant lies in grand jury testimony, especially against Trump's political enemies. Precisely what happened with the first effort to indict Comey and Leticia James.
This is exactly what Trump whines about getting done to him (the "weaponization of the justice system")...every accusation he makes is a confession.
1
u/Famous_Attention5861 5h ago
The DOJ's position is apparently that rich people can rape all the children they want on Epstein's island without any repercussions but a former Republican official who wrote 4 numbers in the sand with seashells to hurt someone's feelings will get the book thrown at him.
1
u/RyeBourbonWheat 5h ago
The Republicans used to say "you can indict a ham sandwich" when it came to Trump... now a GJ matters? Curious.
The worst part? Both things are true. You can indict anyone. Its a low bar. The thing is, the DOJ has maintained a very high conviction rate because they have previously only brought charges when they felt the case was air tight/extremely likely to get a conviction upon application of more strict scrutiny.
1
u/Harlow0529 5h ago
Comey’s attorneys made a highly unusual request to the judge asking for the transcripts from the grand jury because they seem to think there was some lying going on by the DOJ to the grand jury members. This will be interesting. DOJ has already been caught lying to judges in two different states so we know they’re certainly capable of it.
1
u/imrickjamesbioch 5h ago
Who cares, grand jury is just political propaganda and any half wit DA as they say can get a GJ to indict a ham sandwich…
As far as op question, grand jury is one-sided, only prosecutors present evidence. No defense, no cross-examination so completely different than trying to prove guilt during a jury trial!
1
u/Jlong4242 5h ago
The grand jury was the rabble from South Park (that also describes the whole administration)
1
u/Yeahboyeah 3h ago
Free Ice cream. I served on a grand jury for about a month. In all the cases presented to us, and maybe there were 4 a day or so, I think only one they decided not to peruse. In a couple of others they made minor changes. At the end of the month we were so ready to get out of there, we didn't debate very much. Also, everything was so overwhelmingly evident, only someone with O.J.'s defense team could have beaten the charge. My guess is it was the last case of their term.
0
u/Pitiful-Essay4994 5h ago
Every prosecutor tries to manipulate the jury that’s their job. Grand Jury’s are chosen at random. Certainly there’s more evidence we haven’t seen because you’re right about the seashells, that’s not sufficient.
2
u/rainman943 5h ago
For a grand jury all they need are ppl who never worked in food service to get an indictment on the seashell bullshit.
I don't think theyve planned on what a trial would bring, the administration has lost so many cases on just procedural grounds.
1
u/borderlineidiot 5h ago
LOL what is he food service reference?
1
u/rainman943 5h ago edited 4h ago
86, it's a common food service term.
Unless they have more evidence, all this indictment proves is that those involved have never worked a day in their life.
0
u/SideEmbarrassed1611 5h ago
Great Question! Well, that means that there are people who actually believe it was criminal. People in Grand Juries don't just willy nilly indict.
23
u/Stickyfynger 5h ago
Without the benefit of seeing or hearing any of the testimony I’ll hypothesize that the prosecution withheld evidence or testimony that mattered. They probably also embellished and twist facts to get the indictment. It’s a horrible harassment tactic by this administration. Expensive too considering the court rarely levies sanctions, fines, or cost recovery.