Grand Jury returns a no bill in indicting Letitia James

[forkup]

Grand jury declines to re-indict Letitia James in Virginia

The Department of Justice was unable to secure a grand jury indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James in Norfolk, Virginia, a source said.

www.foxnews.com

So, let me ask this for all those who claim James committed crimes.

To DOJ tried to re-indict her. In order to succeed they need to get 12 out of 23 to agree that there MIGHT have been a crime committed. They couldn't do that.

So how strong of a case do you think the DOJ has when the standard in a court case is a unanimous decision that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[progressive hunter]

Grand jury declines to re-indict Letitia James in Virginia

The Department of Justice was unable to secure a grand jury indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James in Norfolk, Virginia, a source said.

www.foxnews.com

So, let me ask this for all those who claim James committed crimes.

To DOJ tried to re-indict her. In order to succeed they need to get 12 out of 23 to agree that there MIGHT have been a crime committed. They couldn't do that.

So how strong of a case do you think the DOJ has when the standard in a court case is a unanimous decision that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt?

I guess the law doesnt apply to everyone after all,,

 

[forkup]

I guess the law doesnt apply to everyone after all,,

Oh, I see, so what exactly is “the law” in your view? That the DOJ says someone committed a crime, and therefore the grand jury doesn’t matter?

Here’s the actual law: the DOJ couldn’t convince 12 out of 23 citizens in Virginia that James likely committed a crime. That’s the lowest threshold in the system.

And your response is basically, “Well she’s guilty anyway because I said so.”

That’s not how law works. That’s how fandom works.

 

[MarcATL]

I guess the law doesnt apply to everyone after all,,

Cite the statute she broke.

 

[forkup]

Cite the statute she broke.

progressive hunter doesn’t operate on statutes; he operates on vibes. And in his version of rock-paper-scissors, there are only two plays:
He's right or everybody else's wrong

Guess which one always wins.

 

[toobfreak]

So how strong of a case do you think the DOJ has

Probably irrelevant here as the only thing being proven here is a democrat can get away with most anything apparently now so long as she has the right friends in a big, blue city, especially the Washington DC region.

 

[forkup]

Probably irrelevant here as the only thing being proven here is a democrat can get away with most anything apparently now so long as she has the right friends in a big, blue city, especially the Washington DC region.

By “the right friends in the Washington D.C. region,” you mean 23 random strangers in the state of Virginia.

Strangers who sat in a room with no judge, no defense, just DOJ prosecutors and a stenographer, and still weren’t convinced a crime even might have been committed.

 

[ChrisMarsei14]

By “the right friends in the Washington D.C. region,” you mean 23 random strangers in the state of Virginia.

Strangers who sat in a room with no judge, no defense, just DOJ prosecutors and a stenographer, and still weren’t convinced a crime even might have been committed.

Depends on how the questions are framed. I testified before a grand jury on a potential murder charge. I know for a fact what happened but the DA had different fish to fry.

 

[forkup]

Depends on how the questions are framed. I testified before a grand jury on a potential murder charge. I know for a fact what happened but the DA had different fish to fry.

Which actually reinforces my point.

If the prosecutor can “frame the questions,” then James was the fish to fry here, and even with that advantage, they still couldn’t get a simple majority of 23 citizens to indict.

 

[ChrisMarsei14]

Makes my point now didn't it. The fish to fry in this case was James. And despite the DA being able to "frame the questions", they still couldn't get a simple majority to indict.

You don't get it. Not every case is of interest to a DA. You frame the questions to avoid indictment. James was not an interesting fish (other than a fat carp).

 

[Mac1958]

Grand jury declines to re-indict Letitia James in Virginia

The Department of Justice was unable to secure a grand jury indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James in Norfolk, Virginia, a source said.

www.foxnews.com

So, let me ask this for all those who claim James committed crimes.

To DOJ tried to re-indict her. In order to succeed they need to get 12 out of 23 to agree that there MIGHT have been a crime committed. They couldn't do that.

So how strong of a case do you think the DOJ has when the standard in a court case is a unanimous decision that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt?

I don't think it matters. These cases are about revenge and intimidation. They want revenge on anyone who tried to hold their new God accountable, and they want to send a message to anyone who wants to try in the future.

If/when the cases get thrown out or lose, they can just claim that they were rigged. Because they know that their new God never lies, never breaks the rules, is brilliant and sincere, and is going to save America from Satan.

This is a cult.

 

[ChrisMarsei14]

btw, I just read a summary of this. I found James was indicted, but a judge dismissed it because the interim attorney--according to the judge--was unlawfully appointed.

 

[candycorn]

Probably irrelevant here as the only thing being proven here is a democrat can get away with most anything apparently now so long as she has the right friends in a big, blue city, especially the Washington DC region.

Wow, that must be frustrating....

 

[forkup]

btw, I just read a summary of this. I found James was indicted, but a judge dismissed it because the interim attorney--according to the judge--was unlawfully appointed.

No you didn't. That was last week. This week they'd try to re-indict because the case was dismissed. They failed.

 

[forkup]

You don't get it. Not every case is of interest to a DA. You frame the questions to avoid indictment. James was not an interesting fish (other than a fat carp).

One of us isn’t getting it, and I’m pretty sure it’s not me.

The entire point of a grand jury is to secure an indictment. If a prosecutor doesn’t want an indictment, they don’t present the case at all, they don’t walk in, “frame the questions,” and then pray the jury shuts them down.

Your argument has now done a full circle: first you said prosecutors can steer a grand jury toward indictment of different fish, and now you’re saying they steered this one away from indictment.

So which is it?

Because whichever version you choose, it doesn’t change the fact that the DOJ couldn’t get 12 out of 23 citizens to agree a crime even might have been committed.

 

[forkup]

I don't think it matters. These cases are about revenge and intimidation. They want revenge on anyone who tried to hold their new God accountable, and they want to send a message to anyone who wants to try in the future.

If/when the cases get thrown out or lose, they can just claim that they were rigged. Because they know that their new God never lies, never breaks the rules, is brilliant and sincere, and is going to save America from Satan.

This is a cult.

It’s striking how quickly the logic falls apart. They can’t hold a consistent position for more than a post or two.

 

[Mac1958]

It’s striking how quickly the logic falls apart. They can’t hold a consistent position for more than a post or two.

Regurgitating what they're told by the voices they trust is relatively easy, but having to intellectually react to contrary thought quickly complicates things. That's usually when they just start attacking.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

I guess the law doesnt apply to everyone after all,,

.

For now.

tick-tick-tick-tick-tick

.

 

[22lcidw]

I don't think it matters. These cases are about revenge and intimidation. They want revenge on anyone who tried to hold their new God accountable, and they want to send a message to anyone who wants to try in the future.

If/when the cases get thrown out or lose, they can just claim that they were rigged. Because they know that their new God never lies, never breaks the rules, is brilliant and sincere, and is going to save America from Satan.

This is a cult.

Even if that was true, so what? Progs are totally innocent of everything. Watching from afar you guys are like locusts. you have no appreciation of the value of a dollar unless you keep yourself under control.

 

[forkup]

.

For now.

tick-tick-tick-tick-tick

.

For now what?

You guys can't get over the first and by far the lowest hurdle.

You think a case that doesn't even convince a majority of the Grand Jury that a crime has been committed will magically become convincing to a full jury to the point that they say there's no reasonable doubt that a crime did occur? Or for that matter a judge who will have to decide over about 2 dozen motions to dismiss?