• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does ANYONE on this forum understand what Mueller's secret grand jury indictments means in practice?

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
64,659
Reaction score
22,738
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
A few years ago I received a letter from a grand jury to appear to answer the change of theft. The situation was that I had bought a printing press (used) that I immediately learned was stolen. I managed to stop payment on the check and returned the printing press to the true owner. Fortunately, I was given opportunity to tell my side of the story - and the members of the grand jury literally applauded for my having returned the press to the true owner and instead indicted the accuser for selling stolen property.

But what if the grand jury had not given me opportunity to appear? Then I would only have heard the thief's side and I would have been indicted for felony theft and arrested. IF I had enough money for a bondsman (10% and that is NOT refunded), I would have sat in jail until if lucky the prosecutor spoke to me or my attorney and had agreed to withdraw the indictment. Still, I would have the arrest on my record, had spent time in jail and lost the bondsman's fee.

I don't think hardly anyone on this forum understands how secret grand jury and perjury trap indictments work. In a secret indictment, the grand jury will indict anyone a prosecutor wants indicted as only the prosecution is heard. The ONLY time secret grand jury indictments are legitimate is when dealing foreign nationals or mobsters/gang members who might go into hiding. That Mueller ONLY uses secret grand jury indictments is evidence that truth and justice is irrelevant to him and that he is fundamentally corrupt.
 

Parrish

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
12,548
Reaction score
5,249
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Grand juries are always held in secret.
 

JANFU

Not quite there yet, but getting close
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
36,753
Reaction score
13,116
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Grand juries are always held in secret.

SSssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh
That public knowledge was supposed to be secret
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
21,239
Reaction score
12,797
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I don't think hardly anyone on this forum understands how secret grand jury and perjury trap indictments work. In a secret indictment, the grand jury will indict anyone a prosecutor wants indicted as only the prosecution is heard. The ONLY time secret grand jury indictments are legitimate is when dealing foreign nationals or mobsters/gang members who might go into hiding. That Mueller ONLY uses secret grand jury indictments is evidence that truth and justice is irrelevant to him and that he is fundamentally corrupt.

You have no clue what you're writing about. Why do you write this joko? To mislead people or because you don't know any better?

All grand juries are by default, secret.
If you were summoned by a grand jury to testify, it was secret.
There are no perjury traps surrounding the Mueller investigation, and there is no evidence of any, and the idea that professionals in the SC would attempt that, is absurd.
There is no evidence of corruption, except you know, in swampy's white house/campaign.
Grand juries decide if evidence is sufficient for indictment, they are composed of citizens to protect from malicious prosecution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States

Now, please tell me where you heard this information joko, so that we can know what sources to avoid in the future.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
125,539
Reaction score
37,813
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
64,659
Reaction score
22,738
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Grand juries are always held in secret.

No, generally the accused is giving opportunity to appear. Only corrupt prosecutors seek secret indictment unless there is reasons such as I gave. The accused may be ordered not to divulge their appearance.
 

Parrish

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
12,548
Reaction score
5,249
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
No, generally the accused is giving opportunity to appear. Only corrupt prosecutors seek secret indictment unless there is reasons such as I gave.

See post #4. :roll:
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
49,585
Reaction score
33,534
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A few years ago I received a letter from a grand jury to appear to answer the change of theft. The situation was that I had bought a printing press (used) that I immediately learned was stolen. I managed to stop payment on the check and returned the printing press to the true owner. Fortunately, I was given opportunity to tell my side of the story - and the members of the grand jury literally applauded for my having returned the press to the true owner and instead indicted the accuser for selling stolen property.

But what if the grand jury had not given me opportunity to appear? Then I would only have heard the thief's side and I would have been indicted for felony theft and arrested. IF I had enough money for a bondsman (10% and that is NOT refunded), I would have sat in jail until if lucky the prosecutor spoke to me or my attorney and had agreed to withdraw the indictment. Still, I would have the arrest on my record, had spent time in jail and lost the bondsman's fee.

I don't think hardly anyone on this forum understands how secret grand jury and perjury trap indictments work. In a secret indictment, the grand jury will indict anyone a prosecutor wants indicted as only the prosecution is heard. The ONLY time secret grand jury indictments are legitimate is when dealing foreign nationals or mobsters/gang members who might go into hiding. That Mueller ONLY uses secret grand jury indictments is evidence that truth and justice is irrelevant to him and that he is fundamentally corrupt.

Seriously?



I mean, really, that was uttered as an intended clever point?

A grand jury is considering whether to accuse someone of a crime, and because of your political allegiance you are upset that nobody told the suspect(s) that they might get indicted, while the investigation is still going on?

You expect them to telegraph to all actual and potential suspects not yet indicted that a grand jury is considering indicting them? You expect suspects to be told that it's time to destroy any documents the authorities may have failed to seize, such that the grand jury subpoeona power does not uncover wrongdoing?

I don't think I ever saw a grand jury indictment that didn't read "<government> vs John Doe", unless it was "<government> vs. Jane Doe".

EDIT: Just checked my files and saw one titled "John Doe Investigation." Oops.


A few years ago I received a letter from a grand jury to appear to answer the change of theft. The situation was that I had bought a printing press (used) that I immediately learned was stolen. I managed to stop payment on the check and returned the printing press to the true owner. Fortunately, I was given opportunity to tell my side of the story - and the members of the grand jury literally applauded for my having returned the press to the true owner and instead indicted the accuser for selling stolen property.

In the vast majority of cases, defendants never get to present their story to a grand jury. There's not even a judge there. Court reporters transcribe it but proceedings are sealed. The test for whether to unseal them or a portion of them is quite strict. The defense ultimately gets the proceedings generally....but that's after they're over.

For some strange reason, I have to doubt your magically convenient "anecdote".....and even if I would be wrong to, it's irrelevant because you do not know or care about what you are trying to talk about. You just want to run a little more interference.







Anyway, thank you for reminding me how little it meant when certain people pretended to care about law and order; political expedience, all.
 
Last edited:

JANFU

Not quite there yet, but getting close
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
36,753
Reaction score
13,116
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Another massive fail.
Last one was this

No other country including all of Europe has automatic birthright citizenship. The USA Constitution's Bill Of Rights appears to assure that basis of citizenship. However, the Bill Of Rights has been amended many times in the past.

Should the US Constitution's Bill Of Rights be amended to end birthright citizenship - and if you think so, how? For example, requiring one of the parents or the mother to be an American citizen at the time of birth.

Are other countries on earth all wrong to not have automatic birthright citizenship?

This poll is NOT asking what the Bill Of Rights already says, but whether it should be amended.

Vote - and give your reasoning and alternatives.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
125,539
Reaction score
37,813
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Another massive fail.
Last one was this

And we don't really. I would support it, but it's not automatic here.
 

MovingPictures

WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
12,618
Reaction score
10,010
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
A few years ago I received a letter from a grand jury to appear to answer the change of theft. The situation was that I had bought a printing press (used) that I immediately learned was stolen. I managed to stop payment on the check and returned the printing press to the true owner. Fortunately, I was given opportunity to tell my side of the story - and the members of the grand jury literally applauded for my having returned the press to the true owner and instead indicted the accuser for selling stolen property.

But what if the grand jury had not given me opportunity to appear? Then I would only have heard the thief's side and I would have been indicted for felony theft and arrested. IF I had enough money for a bondsman (10% and that is NOT refunded), I would have sat in jail until if lucky the prosecutor spoke to me or my attorney and had agreed to withdraw the indictment. Still, I would have the arrest on my record, had spent time in jail and lost the bondsman's fee.

I don't think hardly anyone on this forum understands how secret grand jury and perjury trap indictments work. In a secret indictment, the grand jury will indict anyone a prosecutor wants indicted as only the prosecution is heard. The ONLY time secret grand jury indictments are legitimate is when dealing foreign nationals or mobsters/gang members who might go into hiding. That Mueller ONLY uses secret grand jury indictments is evidence that truth and justice is irrelevant to him and that he is fundamentally corrupt.
Ah, the old "it was a perjury trap!" excuse.

Nobody makes these buffoons you feel sorry for lie, they do that all of their own corrupt desire to do so.

When the Trump gang told the world they had no relationship with Wikileaks or Russian nationals where they discussed stolen emails, that was a bald face lie they were telling us all. They all kept doubling down on this lie in various ways, until Mueller started producing undeniable evidence these people were covering up their involvement in these matters, and now they're paying the price for once in their lives.
 
Last edited:

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
53,419
Reaction score
19,432
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The prosecution had a very weak case on you if they had you appear. That is the only time it ever happens....if the Grand Jury requests it because they don't think there is enough evidence for an indictment. Were they right? They are not a Judge or a Jury.
 
Last edited:

Lovebug

Let go and let God
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
23,944
Reaction score
10,050
Location
south
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
" Does ANYONE on this forum understand what Mueller's secret grand jury indictments means in practice?"

No, but I bet some experts will explain it to you
 

MovingPictures

WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
12,618
Reaction score
10,010
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
No, generally the accused is giving opportunity to appear. Only corrupt prosecutors seek secret indictment unless there is reasons such as I gave. The accused may be ordered not to divulge their appearance.
Uh, no.

Prosecutors send out letters informing people they are in fact targets or subjects of an ongoing investigation. Most sane people contact an attorney upon receiving this letter, at which point attorneys will advise you to not answer any questions the government might have for you, should they suspect you're in the pre-indictment phase.

There's something you're leaving out of your story.
 

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
64,659
Reaction score
22,738
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Uh, no.

Prosecutors send out letters informing people they are in fact targets or subjects of an ongoing investigation. Most sane people contact an attorney upon receiving this letter, at which point attorneys will advise you to not answer any questions the government might have for you, should they suspect you're in the pre-indictment phase.

There's something you're leaving out of your story.

It was a state court grand jury.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,420
Reaction score
21,591
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A few years ago I received a letter from a grand jury to appear to answer the change of theft. The situation was that I had bought a printing press (used) that I immediately learned was stolen. I managed to stop payment on the check and returned the printing press to the true owner. Fortunately, I was given opportunity to tell my side of the story - and the members of the grand jury literally applauded for my having returned the press to the true owner and instead indicted the accuser for selling stolen property.

But what if the grand jury had not given me opportunity to appear? Then I would only have heard the thief's side and I would have been indicted for felony theft and arrested. IF I had enough money for a bondsman (10% and that is NOT refunded), I would have sat in jail until if lucky the prosecutor spoke to me or my attorney and had agreed to withdraw the indictment. Still, I would have the arrest on my record, had spent time in jail and lost the bondsman's fee.

I don't think hardly anyone on this forum understands how secret grand jury and perjury trap indictments work. In a secret indictment, the grand jury will indict anyone a prosecutor wants indicted as only the prosecution is heard. The ONLY time secret grand jury indictments are legitimate is when dealing foreign nationals or mobsters/gang members who might go into hiding. That Mueller ONLY uses secret grand jury indictments is evidence that truth and justice is irrelevant to him and that he is fundamentally corrupt.

Very few people understand the purpose of a grand jury. Essentially it is a tool of the prosecution to present information before a panel of citizens designed to convince them there is a case worth being tried in court.

Many States have a requirement to have potential criminal cases reviewed by a grand jury before being sent to court via their indictment.

It is not designed to determine if a person is innocent or guilty, but rather to test the prosecutor's evidence.

There is no defense presentation. The prosecutor presents his evidence and his arguments as to their merit for particular charge counts, and the Grand Jury votes whether or not to indict.

99% of the time one or more indictments will occur. Then the case is sent for trial.

Mueller is simply using a tool designed for the purpose of testing his evidence before indicting his target.

(EDIT: As pointed out elsewhere, Mueller does not technically "indict," as I stated the Grand Jury "votes" to indict. However, the reality is the prosecutor tells the jury what charges he seeks to press, and they typically [with rare exceptions] rubber stamp those charges if there is any evidence to support them.)
 
Last edited:

MovingPictures

WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
12,618
Reaction score
10,010
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Very few people understand the purpose of a grand jury. Essentially it is a tool of the prosecution to present information before a panel of citizens designed to convince them there is a case worth being tried in court.

Many States have a requirement to have potential criminal cases reviewed by a grand jury before being sent to court via their indictment.

It is not designed to determine if a person is innocent or guilty, but rather to test the prosecutor's evidence.

There is no defense presentation. The prosecutor presents his evidence and the Grand Jury votes whether or not to indict.

99% of the time one or more indictments will occur. Then the case is sent for trial.

Mueller is simply using a tool designed for the purpose of testing his evidence before indicting his target.
There is no defense because nobody has been officially accused of a crime, so no legal counsel representing a client is allowed to speak to the grand jury.

Mueller does not indict anybody, that's what the grand jury votes on.

IMHO, in the meantime, people are best served lawyering up and shutting their mouths. If they're stupid enough to waive that right and tell crystal clear lies to deceive the grand jury, then that's all on them, and they deserve to deal with the consequences.
 

Middle_Ground

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
2,541
Reaction score
1,216
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simple Google search says you were extended a privilege...good for you.

An accused has no right to testify to a Grand Jury. However, the prosecutor may extend an invitation for a defendant or target of investigation to testify. Under this circumstance, a defendant will have the “privilege” of testifying provided he waives his Miranda Rights and Right to Counsel as defense attorneys are not permitted to be present at Grand Jury proceedings.

I won't call you a liar but your situation was not normal.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
49,585
Reaction score
33,534
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Very few people understand the purpose of a grand jury. Essentially it is a tool of the prosecution to present information before a panel of citizens designed to convince them there is a case worth being tried in court.

Many States have a requirement to have potential criminal cases reviewed by a grand jury before being sent to court via their indictment.

It is not designed to determine if a person is innocent or guilty, but rather to test the prosecutor's evidence.

There is no defense presentation. The prosecutor presents his evidence and his arguments as to their merit for particular charge counts, and the Grand Jury votes whether or not to indict.

99% of the time one or more indictments will occur. Then the case is sent for trial.

Mueller is simply using a tool designed for the purpose of testing his evidence before indicting his target.

(EDIT: As pointed out elsewhere, Mueller does not technically "indict," as I stated the Grand Jury "votes" to indict. However, the reality is the prosecutor tells the jury what charges he seeks to press, and they typically [with rare exceptions] rubber stamp those charges if there is any evidence to support them.)


Are you entirely sure there are no circumstances in which a defendant has an opportunity to file a notice of intent to testify before a grand jury?

Because, ah... well go check it out....







Yeah.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Uh, no.

Prosecutors send out letters informing people they are in fact targets or subjects of an ongoing investigation. Most sane people contact an attorney upon receiving this letter, at which point attorneys will advise you to not answer any questions the government might have for you, should they suspect you're in the pre-indictment phase.

There's something you're leaving out of your story.

The truth
 

SonOfDaedalus

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
13,278
Reaction score
8,112
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
A few years ago I received a letter from a grand jury to appear to answer the change of theft. The situation was that I had bought a printing press (used) that I immediately learned was stolen. I managed to stop payment on the check and returned the printing press to the true owner. Fortunately, I was given opportunity to tell my side of the story - and the members of the grand jury literally applauded for my having returned the press to the true owner and instead indicted the accuser for selling stolen property.

But what if the grand jury had not given me opportunity to appear? Then I would only have heard the thief's side and I would have been indicted for felony theft and arrested. IF I had enough money for a bondsman (10% and that is NOT refunded), I would have sat in jail until if lucky the prosecutor spoke to me or my attorney and had agreed to withdraw the indictment. Still, I would have the arrest on my record, had spent time in jail and lost the bondsman's fee.

I don't think hardly anyone on this forum understands how secret grand jury and perjury trap indictments work. In a secret indictment, the grand jury will indict anyone a prosecutor wants indicted as only the prosecution is heard. The ONLY time secret grand jury indictments are legitimate is when dealing foreign nationals or mobsters/gang members who might go into hiding. That Mueller ONLY uses secret grand jury indictments is evidence that truth and justice is irrelevant to him and that he is fundamentally corrupt.

I'm 100% fed up with people like you. By now everyone with two brain cells knows that Trump is a sleezy lying crook. So, please spare us these claims of unfair prosecution. Nobody believes Trump is innocent.

Just admit that you don't care if Trump is corrupt. You support public corruption as long as it convenient for you politically. The ends justify the means.

I don't care if that's how you feel. But please stop wasting our time defending Trump and claiming he's some kind of victim. Trump has always been crooked. I'm a New Yorker and we all know Trump is a crook and a conman.
 

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
64,659
Reaction score
22,738
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
A prosecutor does not have to give a person opportunity to tell their side to a grand jury, but unless a clear cut case the reason is because an indictment is essentially certain if not. Since the majority of people can not afford bail, this means that most - innocent or guilty - sit in jail until they plead guilty or - months later - get a trial with a crappy court appointed attorney who doesn't give a damn. For most, unless an extremely serious case, they will spend less time in jail pleading guilty than pleading not guilty and waiting in jail for trial.

Any truthful criminal defense or prosecution lawyer would admit that without that method of forcing people to plead guilty the criminal justice system would collapse. One way defense attorneys deal with a DA's office that playing too hardball on deals is to advise they want a jury trial for every client, while at the same time formally demanding a speedy trial. The maximum percentage of cases the federal system could take to a jury trial is around 5% and at 10% the system would collapse. In state courts the percentage - if misdemeanors included - probably is no more than 2% in major urban areas. This, of course, lands on lower income people and virtually everyone who can not post bond.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
263,224
Reaction score
81,334
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You have no clue what you're writing about. Why do you write this joko? To mislead people or because you don't know any better?

All grand juries are by default, secret.
If you were summoned by a grand jury to testify, it was secret.
There are no perjury traps surrounding the Mueller investigation, and there is no evidence of any, and the idea that professionals in the SC would attempt that, is absurd.
There is no evidence of corruption, except you know, in swampy's white house/campaign.
Grand juries decide if evidence is sufficient for indictment, they are composed of citizens to protect from malicious prosecution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States

Now, please tell me where you heard this information joko, so that we can know what sources to avoid in the future.

you ever appear before a grand jury as a member of the jury?
a witness
a target
a prosecutor

what is a target letter? do you know?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
263,224
Reaction score
81,334
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'm 100% fed up with people like you. By now everyone with two brain cells knows that Trump is a sleezy lying crook. So, please spare us these claims of unfair prosecution. Nobody believes Trump is innocent.

Just admit that you don't care if Trump is corrupt. You support public corruption as long as it convenient for you politically. The ends justify the means.

I don't care if that's how you feel. But please stop wasting our time defending Trump and claiming he's some kind of victim. Trump has always been crooked. I'm a New Yorker and we all know Trump is a crook and a conman.

what a stupid statement that is the spawn of partisan hackery. Under our system of justice-Trump is innocent until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Stop lying and stop pretending you speak for the entire country, rather than the TDS crowd
 
Top Bottom