Skip to comments.SCALIA ON 'A GRAND JURY BY US' (IT IS NOT ONLY FOR MUELLER OR COURTS TO MAKE)
Posted on 08/06/2017 7:23:52 AM PDT by Hostage
Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It `is a constitutional fixture in its own right.' In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. Although the grand jury normally operates, 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.
The grand jury's functional independence from the Judicial Branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing and in the manner in which that power is exercised. Unlike a court, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not. It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even "the precise nature of the offense" it is investigating. 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. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(c), and deliberates in total secrecy ...
True, the grand jury cannot compel the appearance of witnesses and the production of evidence, and must appeal to the court when such compulsion is required. And the court will refuse to lend its assistance when the compulsion the grand jury seeks would override rights accorded by the Constitution, (grand jury subpoena effectively qualified by order limiting questioning so as to preserve Speech or Debate Clause immunity), or even testimonial privileges recognized by the common law, (same with respect to privilege for confidential marital communications). Even in this setting, however, we have insisted that the grand jury remain "free to pursue its investigations unhindered by external influence or supervision so long as it does not trench upon the legitimate rights of any witness called before it." Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said that the Fifth Amendment's "constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body `acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge."
A layman's summary and commentary might be made thus:
Focus Point: A grand jury convened and impaneled by WE THE PEOPLE: A federal grand jury can be impaneled by a self-organizing group of concerned citizens who are careful to develop procedures that lead to an authorized binding of recognition before a US Magistrate that compels prosecution based on its findings and indictments.
A grand jury is constitutional but is not a part of any government authority prescribed under the Constitution. Courts, prosecutors, Congress do not govern or rule grand juries including the mandating of procedures for their convening. They are recognized under the Constitution with or without any government appendage period. Swearing in of members of a grand jury is not necessarily a purview of courts and judges.
A swearing in and an administering of oaths of members of a grand jury can take place in secret or in the presence of a judge. In the latter case, the swearing in may be viewed as a form of 'recognition' before the court of a grand jury's purpose.
A grand jury operating independently can 'request' witnesses to participate in its deliberations but it cannot make witnesses appear before it although it can ask a court to make a witness appear (issue a summons) just as any court convened grand jury
Now here is a crucial detail to consider: Mueller's cabal of leftist lawyers have a hand in 'selecting' members of the grand jury they impanel. The fact that there is not one republican conservative lawyer brought in by Mueller is telling. Hence, with certainty, it can be expected that the grand jury impaneled by Mueller's lawyers will be biased against the Trump Administration.
However, the discussion above points out that 'selecting' a grand jury is not up to judges or prosecutors. it can be impaneled by an association of concerned citizens. Its constitutionality is unquestioned, therefore its findings and indictments are just as binding as a grand jury impaneled by a prosecutor.
By finding and indicting Hillary Clinton, a grand jury impaneled by a group of concerned citizens can present their findings and indictments to any federal prosecutor to pursue criminal charges against Clinton. And there are no precedents or authorities for such prosecutors to decide if the grand jury's findings and indictments are or are not sufficient. The only clear refusal to prosecute on presentment of a grand jury's findings and indictments would be if constitutional rights were to be violated and even then it is case-by-case, point-by-point.
This is posted as a response to the lack of movement by Congress or by DOJ to counter the Mueller action of impaneling a grand jury.
See below references to Judge Janine.
Judge Jeanine: Why do we let them get away with it?
“Mueller has impaneled a grand jury in a district that despises our President”
“Mueller is a friend of Comey who has brought on Hillary and Obama lawyers to take down the President. He is completely conflicted.”
“Loretta Lynch’s case needs to be heard by a grand jury to review the collusion on that tarmac and the promise of a payoff to Lynch”
“Hillary Clinton’s case needs to be brought to a grand jury immediately. There is still time to prosecute her for putting our classified information on her private server that she then shared with her girlfriends one of whom shared it a computer with her dirtbag husband.”
“All of the immunity agreements can be nullified, most of the terms have already been violated. And Hillary must be prosecuted for perjury. She and her State Department intentionally lied, saying that there were no Benghazi emails and no classified emails, and she deleted 33,000 emails”
Relevant questions and comments taken from social media:
“I don’t understand how we can appeal to the criminal Federal government and petition them to prosecute themselves in their own court system?”
“Isn’t the Federal Government ALWAYS going to cover for itself? Isn’t it entirely THEIR court system?”
“THERE WILL BE NO JUSTICE WITH THE CURRENT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT”
“Do we have docs on the Awan bail? And who issued/approved the bail? He was clearly an obvious flight risk...”
(Yes, the Awans are relevant as they are the key to bringing down the entire Deep State)
Article and comments
Now here is a crucial detail to consider: Mueller’s cabal of leftist lawyers have a hand in ‘selecting’ members of the grand jury they impanel. The fact that there is not one republican conservative lawyer brought in by Mueller is telling
More at link
A DC Grand Jury consists solely of people who get checks from the government, and some who get checks from servicing them.
It is very unlikely they will do anything but what the government wants them to do.
Thanks for pinging the list.
To be clear, a grand jury impaneled by ‘We The People’ would be a separate grand jury from that impaneled by Mueller. Such a grand jury would follow a separate track of deliberation from that of Mueller’s grand jury.
What is needed, and needed quickly, are a gathering of seasoned and experienced conservatives that will impanel such a grand jury as soon as humanly possible, and make it effective to counter the Mueller insurgency.
Yes, exactly, That’s the exact point.
And that is why a separate grand jury needs to be convened to prosecute Lynch, Clinton and ‘the whole lot of them’ according to Judge Janine.
The crucial relevant quote of Justice Scalia taken from US v. Williams:
“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.”
Driving the point home.
We know it’s a long shot for such an outside-the-court convening of a grand jury but the alternative is to wait for action by Congress or by the DOJ, and with high probability that alternative is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
Ping for later
The AG needs to get off his duff.
H won’t, not on this.
So how exactly would any group of people go about impaneling a legitimate grand jury.
Let’s say a pro Trump guy like Hannity wanted to create a grand jury to investigate all the corruption of the deep state how would he do that? What are the specific steps? And has that ever been done? And where would the money to fund such an investigation come from? (maybe that is the show stopper).
How would that grand jury get funded? Would it have access to the same unlimited government resources that Mueller’s grand jury has?
And who would run it? Who would be the equivalent of Mueller?
You’re asking all the right questions.
Some of the answers lie in the process of how any group forms itself, from a corporation to a nonprofit. The funding in my view and preference should be self-funding by say retirees or financially independent persons. Yes, such persons still exist.
As for the interaction with a court system, the grand jury would file with a court for recognition as a bona fide grand jury and with a prosecutor’s office to compel prosecution, no different that any other grand jury.
Of course, such a filing would be challenged so the grand jury organizers would have to have legal counsel ready to dismiss and appeal as necessary based on the Scalia ruling.
This thread is put out there to spread the word in conservative legal communities of another pathway available via Scalia and the Supreme Court decision in the US v. Williams case referenced above. Because as it is now, the conservative legal community is doing nothing but complaining about the FBI and DOJ intransigence. And they should expect that the FBI and DOJ will do NOTHING to prosecute Clinton, Lynch, Comey, McCabe and others.
What you and others can do is to spread the word on, let’s call it. “Scalia Grand Juries”. Spread the word when you call in to Limbaugh or any talk show host, Hannity, Tucker, social media, Twitter, etc. Keep pushing the word out there until the right ears hear it and commit to seeing it through.
I would think Mark Levin would jump all over this.
The funding is still a big hurdle, and legitimizing the process will undoubtedly have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, that may take years.
Also the other side will then also want to set up their grand juries investigating our side.
So the thing may degenerate into a free for all of dueling grand juries calling every one under the sun that knows anyone with influence and power and subjecting them to charges of perjury or worse.
The results of this could be a real draining of the swamps on both sides, or a state of scary permanent inquisition where everyone is walking on eggshells.
Not trying to throw cold water on the idea, just thinking out loud on possible ramifications...
Yes, yes, and yes.
In regards to the other side setting up their own grand juries, well, what exactly is Mueller doing now?
There is no perfect solution. There is only a war and who wins the war.
As one fine investigator said when confronting the prospect of dying in battle:
“In America’s wars, from the Revolutionary War to its Civil War, and in its wars thereafter. the flag bearer was always the target and was always unarmed. The flag bearer knew they were to die, and yet when they fell, others would take up the flag knowing they too would die. In fact, pre-battle fights would break out over who would carry the flag with the winner prevailing to be the flag bearer.”
It takes courage. As soon as Americans wake up to that, the Deep State is finished.
... the grand jury can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated...
NOBODY has declared which law(s) Trump, or his election team, has violated
Yes, and that is well-called out in Judge Janine’s link above. View it.
Unlike Mueller’s fishing expedition, there is solid evidence of crimes by Clinton, Lynch, Comey, and many others. Yet, Sessions is doing nothing and will do nothing. Forget the FBI as long as McCabe is acting director.
So one recourse is a “Scalia Grand Jury” after US v. Williams. It’s an option and it should be used to force Mueller to back down and dissolve his witch hunt.
“The best defense is a good offense!”
So the dims went after TRUMP and his administration before they had time or were organized to go after the Clinton/globalist machine.
It certainly doesn’t mean the DIMS are going to win the game. It’s more of a sign of how desperate they are. They have no defense Their bench is weak, compromised and generally unethical (Cheaters)
Once the whistle is blown and the game begins the DIM will have exposed their game plan leaving the Trump Team in charge.
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.