Guys.
Learn the saying: “A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich”
There is good reason to believe that they could be going through with it to set precedent that a judge cannot be arrested for following due process.
Arresting judges, suspending habeas corpus, detaining political commentators at airports…
At what point do we agree that it’s no longer illegal to say the thing that we all need to say?
It will always be illegal, under the current state of affairs it’s getting more dangerous not less dangerous to say such things.
We are currently in a state where what you say online will be held against you. We are approaching the perfect storm of 1984 surveillance and blade runner technology
Arresting mayors, threatening to arrest members of congress…
I hate this case.
Ice did a bunch of shitty illegal things
The judge tried to slightly protect the normalcy of her courtroom, and did at least one slightly wrong thing.
Yet, with all the shit they did they’re not being held accountable only she is.
I would honestly hope that a judge in her case would have done at least what she did, But I would also hope that ice would hold themselves to any fucking even half assed moral standard.
Remember, the fascists don’t declare fascism. They declare anti-fascism illegal.
While arresting judges is fucked up, the fact that this is a grand jury implies that the public had a part in deciding if the case should continue no?
Of course they could have gotten lucky with a full maga jury knowing how many troglodytes are in this country…
Grand juries are entirely one sided. The prosecutor tries to convince the jury. There is no defense. There is no one there to dispute anything the prosecutor says.
There’s a saying that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. Grand juries aren’t an effective barrier to frivolous law enforcement. Any prosecutor can convince a grand jury on anything. Those who can’t, don’t stay prosecutors for long.
That’s the second time in this thread I read about a ham sandwich and I’m getting so hungry. Stop it!
Well that’s not great…
Now that you mentioned it, I do actually recall hearing that saying. No bueno…
It gives the facade of public input but the prosecutor is who controls the show and writes the narrative. The opposite example of this is all the cops who are never held accountable for their crimes because prosecutors decide to only show evidence exhonerating them, the grand jury comes back deciding not to indict, and these sleazeballs then point to the process and say “justice in action!”
It implies that the prosecutors got to select the group of people tasked with deciding whether or not to indict.
This is not a trial jury voting to convict, but a grand jury deciding that the case can go to trial.
thats how they choose jurors stupid enough to vote one way or another, they dont want actually educated jurors for the most part.
