Much has been made of the fact that at least two federal grand juries have indicted former President Donald Trump for “crimes” which many agree are not crimes at all. Two other grand juries—one in New York City, the other in Atlanta, Georgia—also returned indictments against the former president. In the case of the latter two, both are partisan Democrat strongholds.
As the left has gone giddy over President Trump being indicted by four grand juries, one stark fact should temper that enthusiasm. According to Daniel Greenfield, writing in Front Page Magazine, federal grand juries indict alleged criminals in 99.9% of cases. In fact, out of 162,000 cases in federal court, grand juries only declined to indict 11 people.
Greenfield addressed two op-eds published by former George W. Bush attorneys general—Jack Goldsmith and Alberto Gonzalez. Goldsmith served as assistant attorney general, while Gonzalez served as attorney general under Bush the junior.
While Goldsmith wrote the indictment of Trump “may have terrible consequences,” Gonzalez opined that “the Justice Department is not biased against us.” We are not sure what planet Gonzalez is on, but his opinion is that the DOJ doesn’t have it out for conservatives (or apparently Trump).
Gonzalez states his case by claiming that federal prosecutors “cannot unilaterally indict any individual they choose. They must bring their evidence before a grand jury, which is made up of ordinary citizens, who weigh the evidence and have the final say as to whether a defendant should be indicted.”
Okay, fair enough. What Gonzalez didn’t say, however, is that the “evidence” presented before a grand jury only includes that which benefits the prosecution. The “defendant” does not have the right to present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury, nor do they even have the right to representation before a grand jury. It is a one-sided process that favors the prosecution…heavily.
Gonzalez wrote that “three independent grand juries of Americans—not just three prosecutors—have indicted one Republican politician, Trump, for a variety of crimes.”
Again, Gonzalez conveniently omits the fact that those three grand juries are located in two cities—Washington, DC, and New York City—which both vote heavily Democrat. (Note: Greenfield’s op-ed was written before the Fulton County DA had Trump indicted in Georgia). The makeup of the three grand juries—two in Washington, DC, and one in New York City—hardly comprises Donald Trump’s “peers.”
A famous saying goes, "A grand jury could indict a ham sandwich.” That claim is not too far from the truth.
A story written by two law professors at Columbia Law School (clearly not a right-wing legal mill) in 2014 after the Ferguson riots spells out why the grand jury system in the country is pretty much a joke.
The professors wrote, “The grand jury process is now so routinized in most state jurisdictions that it has become a pro forma proceeding to deliver an indictment for a prosecutor. It is for this reason that most lawyers say, repeating the famous expression of the former chief judge of the highest New York state court, Sol Wachtler, that prosecutors can get grand juries to ‘indict a ham sandwich.’ According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, ‘U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.’”
Greenfield notes the cognitive dissonance of Gonzalez’s op-ed because he, above all, should realize how bogus the grand jury system is. How so?
In 2008, Gonzalez, along with former Vice President Dick Cheney, was indicted in Texas by outgoing Willacy County district attorney Juan Angel Guerra, who convinced a grand jury to indict both men in connection with a beating death of an inmate at two federal detention centers, according to the Telegram & Gazette.
“The longtime district attorney in Willacy County, Texas, is not retiring from public office quietly after a defeat at the polls this year," the outlet wrote. "Instead, he has issued a flurry of indictments against his local political enemies and then, for good measure, filed charges against Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzalez.
"Cheney was charged with ‘engaging in an organized criminal activity’ in connection with the 2001 beating death of an inmate by two fellow inmates at one of the privately run federal detention centers in the county, which is on the Mexican border,’ officials said.
"The indictment also says both Cheney and Gonzalez ‘committed the crime of neglect’ because, it contends, illegal immigrants were ill-treated at detention centers.”
Based on his own experience, Gonzales should realize the folly of grand juries. In this case, his apparent affliction with “Trump Derangement Syndrome” has affected his memory.
As the left has gone giddy over President Trump being indicted by four grand juries, one stark fact should temper that enthusiasm. According to Daniel Greenfield, writing in Front Page Magazine, federal grand juries indict alleged criminals in 99.9% of cases. In fact, out of 162,000 cases in federal court, grand juries only declined to indict 11 people.
Greenfield addressed two op-eds published by former George W. Bush attorneys general—Jack Goldsmith and Alberto Gonzalez. Goldsmith served as assistant attorney general, while Gonzalez served as attorney general under Bush the junior.
While Goldsmith wrote the indictment of Trump “may have terrible consequences,” Gonzalez opined that “the Justice Department is not biased against us.” We are not sure what planet Gonzalez is on, but his opinion is that the DOJ doesn’t have it out for conservatives (or apparently Trump).
Gonzalez states his case by claiming that federal prosecutors “cannot unilaterally indict any individual they choose. They must bring their evidence before a grand jury, which is made up of ordinary citizens, who weigh the evidence and have the final say as to whether a defendant should be indicted.”
Okay, fair enough. What Gonzalez didn’t say, however, is that the “evidence” presented before a grand jury only includes that which benefits the prosecution. The “defendant” does not have the right to present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury, nor do they even have the right to representation before a grand jury. It is a one-sided process that favors the prosecution…heavily.
Gonzalez wrote that “three independent grand juries of Americans—not just three prosecutors—have indicted one Republican politician, Trump, for a variety of crimes.”
Again, Gonzalez conveniently omits the fact that those three grand juries are located in two cities—Washington, DC, and New York City—which both vote heavily Democrat. (Note: Greenfield’s op-ed was written before the Fulton County DA had Trump indicted in Georgia). The makeup of the three grand juries—two in Washington, DC, and one in New York City—hardly comprises Donald Trump’s “peers.”
A famous saying goes, "A grand jury could indict a ham sandwich.” That claim is not too far from the truth.
A story written by two law professors at Columbia Law School (clearly not a right-wing legal mill) in 2014 after the Ferguson riots spells out why the grand jury system in the country is pretty much a joke.
The professors wrote, “The grand jury process is now so routinized in most state jurisdictions that it has become a pro forma proceeding to deliver an indictment for a prosecutor. It is for this reason that most lawyers say, repeating the famous expression of the former chief judge of the highest New York state court, Sol Wachtler, that prosecutors can get grand juries to ‘indict a ham sandwich.’ According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, ‘U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.’”
Greenfield notes the cognitive dissonance of Gonzalez’s op-ed because he, above all, should realize how bogus the grand jury system is. How so?
In 2008, Gonzalez, along with former Vice President Dick Cheney, was indicted in Texas by outgoing Willacy County district attorney Juan Angel Guerra, who convinced a grand jury to indict both men in connection with a beating death of an inmate at two federal detention centers, according to the Telegram & Gazette.
“The longtime district attorney in Willacy County, Texas, is not retiring from public office quietly after a defeat at the polls this year," the outlet wrote. "Instead, he has issued a flurry of indictments against his local political enemies and then, for good measure, filed charges against Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzalez.
"Cheney was charged with ‘engaging in an organized criminal activity’ in connection with the 2001 beating death of an inmate by two fellow inmates at one of the privately run federal detention centers in the county, which is on the Mexican border,’ officials said.
"The indictment also says both Cheney and Gonzalez ‘committed the crime of neglect’ because, it contends, illegal immigrants were ill-treated at detention centers.”
Based on his own experience, Gonzales should realize the folly of grand juries. In this case, his apparent affliction with “Trump Derangement Syndrome” has affected his memory.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments