Posted on 08/06/2017 7:23:52 AM PDT by Hostage
“There is no perfect solution. There is only a war and who wins the war.”
And there’s absolutely no question we’re at war - a civil war. The other side is fully engaged and on the attack. Most of our side is still asleep, or too comfortable to be bothered.
Sounds good hoosiermama, and I hope Congress will not allow the Mueller witch hunt to grow into an impeachment for 2018. But I’m not holding my breath.
What was particularly disturbing, very disturbing, is that the US Senate voted UNANIMOUSLY to block any recess appointments by our President.
What is also disturbing is that there is only one committee head in the House who calls for prosecuting Clinton, Comey, etc.
The two facts above allow one to think that a great many members of Congress and their staffers have been compromised after 8 years of Obama and his illegal surveillance including using the Congressional Credit Union as a slush fund just like the Rostenkowski Congressional post office scandal of 1993.
That is why the Awan group crimes matter because they can expose all of the corruption, all of it. And that includes republicans in Congress.
Donald Trump has been betrayed in his own White House. There’s no denying it. He stepped in and gave everyone a clean slate and look what they’ve done.
The Trump Team is good but in nearly seven months they can’t get it done. Sorry but facts are facts. It wasn’t the ‘Trump Team’ in the White House that got Donald Trump elected. It was all of us out here.
And it’s going to take us out here to return fire by causing the prosecution of Clinton, Comey, Lynch, McCabe and so many others. The President himself has exclaimed “Why aren’t Clinton’s crimes being investigated?”.
He will not get any help from Congress, he cannot get anything before the courts because his AG is a dumbass, and his acting FBI Director is a criminal in the Clinton camp.
That leaves us. We who showed up en masse at his rallies, we who overwhelmed the polling places on Nov 8, 2016, we who roar through social media, it’s us that will defeat the Deep State, not ‘Team Trump’ in the WH.
Listen to Judge Janine’s Youtube link above. Do it now. It will become clearer. Then study what Justice Scalia wrote in US v. WIlliams and spread the word.
But we have some really good people on our side and it doesn’t take many to organize and convene a ‘Scalia Grand Jury’.
But it is true that the people that take the initiative need to have legal sophistication and experience. But they will never do it unless somehow the thought gets put in their heads.
And no, lawyers don’t know every case that was ever decided, even by the US Supreme Court. So it’s not expected that the sophisticated experienced conservative we are trying to reach will have heard or remembered US v. Williams written by Justice Scalia in 1992.
Spread the word.
Superb post.
hmmmm freepers federal grand jury ....first Lynch and Rice...then the Clinton. ...then Holder and Obama and Soros.
Can't be done.
Another quote from the same Scalia opinion: "Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office."
Thanks for posting this.
A positive first step.
I've been saying Sessions is a SLUG ever since he recused himself.
Trump is going to sink his own ship he if doesn't take some immediate action.
Justice Scalia did NOT say it can’t be done. Otherwise, he would have ruled against Williams.
Here’s what he wrote, repeating from post #9 above:
“The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment.”
That’s the Supreme Court’s ruling and there is no confusion in it. It does not need to be initiated by a court or a prosecutor.
A group of concerned citizens can convene a grand jury and file a notice if they desire in court to allow the members of the grand jury to deliberate under its auspices, meaning that any of its findings and indictments are recorded under seal by the court.
Now there will be with high probability at least one federal court that will accept a ‘Scalia Grand Jury’ to make its presentments to the court and to prosecutors. For example, Freepers taking a template by yours truly were able to get a matter before Governor Greg Abbott of Texas when he was the State AG and to provide him with the template to write a preliminary injunction against Barack Obama’s DAPA program that sought to evade Congress and amnestize millions of illegal aliens and where AG Abbott was able to find a suitable federal judge in Judge Hanen of the Southern District of Texas. So it can be done with a number of subject matter jurisdictions such as violations of 4th Amendment rights or stealing of property owned by the public (for example, destruction of government property in an off-site server containing official communications). There are dozens of subject matter jurisdiction items that can form a foundation for a grand jury.
It is constitutional and cannot be barred. That was the whole point of US v. Williams referenced above. Prosecutors cannot refuse to act on its findings and indictments unless rights have been violated, and even then it is case by case, point by point, as Justice Scalia, so clearly described.
It is very similar to a group calling the police to report a crime with witnesses standing ready to give their testimony. The police cannot refuse to take a report and to act on it.
What Scalia was conveying in US v. Williams is that the courts have allowed over time for the grand jury to become ‘owned’ by government courts and prosecutors, while the people have forgotten that the grand jury is theirs. Scalia was reminding the nation in his decision that the courts and prosecutors have no title to grand juries, they are a property of any group that wishes to create and convene one, with a natural expectation that an independently formed grand jury will want to interact with a court and a prosecutor, hence they will seek and file for recognition on a case. It’s expected, but not necessary.
Did you read the opinion? Williams lost.
Williams was asking the courts to force the prosecutor to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. Scalia ruled against him, holding that the courts don't interfere in the grand jury's proceedings except for: (1) calling the grand jury into existence, (2) swearing the grand jurors in, and (3) enforcing (or refusing to enforce) grand jury subpoenas.
Yes, the other way around. Was in a hurry. The point remains, a grand jury need not be created by a prosecutor, or convened by a court. Organizers can file with a court to take advantage of the Court’s subpoena powers, and odds are there will be a federal court that will accommodate.
A grand jury is not created to determine guilt or innocence, just evidence of wrongdoing, of probable cause. Judicial Watch could ask a Court for permission to impanel a grand jury. It need not be a prosecutor.
Yeah, Scalia would have ruled FOR Williams had he seen plainly that grand juries were constitutional only under the judicial branch.
You're still ignoring Scalia's quote that "Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together" (emphasis added).
In any event, federal law now provides that only federal courts can order that a grand jury be summoned, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 6(a)(1), and that any indictment returned by a grand jury is void unless it is also "signed by an attorney for the government," Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1).
No, I did not ignore that statement. I saw correctly that it is not as strong as the declarative statement that Scalia used to lay down the law for the lower courts.
That statement you cling to is a weaker statement as it declares nothing, it is a description of what has evolved, not what must be adhered to.
The lower courts had fallen into a practice where they would dictate to a grand jury what was and was not a valid indictment. Scalia set them straight.
Scalia’s statement that I posted more than once and once directly to you is the weighty statement. Here it is again:
“The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment.”
That is a ***declarative*** statement, much stronger than the descriptive background status statement used to describe the way things evolved without regard to the Constitution.
His usage of the phrases “requires no authorization ... nor require”; those phrases are not accidental. He is using the statement you cling to which begins with the qualifier “although” to draw attention that ‘although the way things are now, they evolved beyond what was meant so that now the view of a grand jury is not aligned with the Constitution. He goes on to say that the grand jury is in the Bill of Rights but not in the Articles, therefore not under the jurisdiction of any government branch, yet prosecutors and courts seem to think a grand jury cannot exist outside of their sphere.
So again, and for the last time, grand juries are to find evidence of wrongdoing, to make indictments based on the evidence, not to determine guilt or innocence, and these activities can take place on their own without a court or prosecutor. If such a grand jury writes a report citing key evidence for an indictment of a person of interest, a prosecutor cannot ignore the indictment unless they too are in on it or derelict.
The natural tendency of grand juries to cluster around courts and prosecutor offices is to take advantage of the subpoena power of courts. That power is quite useful and so it is not surprising that over time courts have come to think a grand jury is an appendage of the court.
What do you think the words "its constituting court" mean?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.