I only learned like last year that you can keep convening grand juries until you get one that indicts. Seems kind of strange to me
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2025
299 points (99.7% liked)
News
33562 readers
1782 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think it's so rare because grand juries have an insanely high indictment rate. They typically don't convene them unless they know for certain that they'll indict. Which is why it was so rare up until the current administration.
When they wanted to prosecute the guy who threw a sub sandwich at the ICE agent, the Grand Jury shot them down twice. So they altered the charges so they didn't require a grand jury to go to court.
In court, the ICE agent whined about how he had PTSD, since the sandwich burst open on his uniform, and smeared mustard and onions all over it, which he had to smell all day, causing massive psychological harm.
The defense introduced a photograph of the sandwich, laying in the road, AFTER the throw, and it was still tightly wrapped. It hadn't burst open, no mustard or onions were smeared. The ICE agents entire testimony was a straight up lie. The jury found the sandwich thrower Not Guilty.
So I suspect that their next move will be to adjust the charges to bypass the Grand Jury.
But in the past it wasn't necessary because, as the saying went, you could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The bar to indictment is incredibly low. So, it's actually extremely embarrassing to have the media talking about how you keep trying and failing.
Edit: I should have said it was rarely necessary.
The bar to indictment is incredibly low
Unless a cop has murdered someone, of course. Then it's BARELY legal to convene a jury.
Ahh... To live in a time where "shame" was a thing again...
Not just keep trying and failing, but doing so multiple times in just a couple months. This DOJ is run by incompetence.
They generally don't though because the burden to indict is SIGNFICANTLY lower than the burden to convict. Anyone that you cannot even get an indictment for isn't likely to be convicted at trial.
Yeah, except that dealing with a legal defense costs a lot of time and money. So even if they can't convict they can use the courts as a means to punish.
Really shows how much our legal system needs an overhaul to prevent abuse like this.
Which is the whole point of grand juries.
We've gone for a century with prosecutors being afraid to test the grand jury because it's embarrassing to miss and mostly pointless.
Now we're seeking out fake prosecutors who don't give a fuck.
Because embarrassment is not a thing in US politics anymore. Turns out it was pretty much the only thing holding everything together.
also grand juries take significantly longer time to be seated than regular trial, enough to hurt working people financial situation, that arnt well off for jury service.
Yeah, just another destruction of norms.
Kind of. There was a reason to create the grand jury concept in the first place.
Yeah, I wasn't disagreeing. My point was that the norm was not getting an indictment on a grand jury was embarrassing and hurt someone's career. This disincentivized prosecutors from repeatedly bringing a case to a Grand Jury. But Trump and his cronies don't care, breaking the norm, and will keep pushing to get what they want.
That was the norm for the past century. The norm for centuries before that was that the King could fuck whoever he likes, metaphorically or literally, for any reason.
They're bringing back old norms.
There's no defense at a grand jury hearing. So at least that's free. Likely not stress free.
My point is Trump can keep brining it to a Grand Jury cause it effectively costs him nothing. It only takes one grand jury to indicate and then Trumps political enemies (Comey/etc.) are forced to pay legal fees (amongst other things).
There's no defense at a grand jury.
My point is Trump can keep brining it to a Grand Jury cause it effectively costs him nothing. It only takes one grand jury to indicate and then Trumps political enemies (Comey/etc.) are forced to pay legal fees (amongst other things).
It makes sense though. It’s not an actual trial, just a test to see if the prosecution has strong enough evidence to support an indictment. If not, they keep digging.
While true, Federal prosecutors historically don't even bother with charges if they're not sure of a conviction. This is just explicit evidence that this DOJ is both incompetent and focused on politics not justice.
Yeah, 100% the system is being abused. But like the Comey thing, they still need to follow the right procedures or it will backfire.
Just keep bringing in more grand juries against her until you either get an indictment or she dies, either way she's tied up for life.
It's a DDoJ. Distributed-denial-of-justice.
either way she's tied up for life.
She doesn't need to do anything for a grand jury hearing. The defence isn't involved.
its the benghazi thing all over again, its to keep the Sound bytes for fox train going.
It's legal terrorism.
The fact there's no double-jeopardy (triple? quadruple? Something not infinite at least?!) for indictments astounds me.
Then again it shouldn't surprise any more -- the US system seems to have a billion holes, like swiss-cheese, only left unexploited up until recently because those in power had, maybe, some small shred of shame and decency. All those loopholes must be absolutely sewn shut, and 'conventions' and 'gentlemenly guardrails' need to be made hard, fast, and most importantly ENFORCED laws if the country is to ever recover. I'm not hopeful.
the US system seems to have a billion holes, like swiss-cheese, only left unexploited up until recently because those in power had, maybe, some small shred of shame and decency.
I guarantee you this is true of every nation in the world.
This is one of those guardrails that's holding... so far.
STOP WASTING TAX DOLLARS! GTFO it!
Let the ketchup fly
Do they get to keep trying until it works?
I'm starting to think anarchists were right.