By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Federal grand juries in Washington, D.C., are repeatedly refusing to indict cases brought by the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney, Jeanine Pirro, under the Trump administration’s “federal crime crackdown.” This trend is exemplified by the case of Nathalie Rose Jones, who was accused of threatening Trump online; the grand jury returned “no bill” despite the charges. This reflects the grand jury’s resistance to the cases, as they are unconvinced by the evidence. The grand jury’s refusals have been occurring in multiple other cases as well, creating a rare clash between federal authority and local jurors.
Read the original article here
Federal grand juries in D.C. are, surprisingly, refusing to indict people targeted in what’s being called Trump’s crime crackdown, and that’s a significant development. It seems like these grand juries, which are often seen as rubber-stamping indictments, are pushing back. Some are even calling it “unprecedented” as grand juries are handing the DOJ losses at a remarkable rate.
This reaction is happening against the backdrop of a broader legal and political battle. A federal court has already ruled against the crackdown itself, suggesting it’s illegal. The fact that grand juries are declining to indict individuals roughed up by the crackdown’s actions further complicates matters. Some folks believe this all points to an administration using the Department of Justice as a tool to target political opponents, viewing the crackdowns as an attempt to consolidate power through what is described as a fascist takeover.
The refusal to indict, in this context, is seen as a form of resistance. The sentiment seems to be that average, reasonable citizens don’t appreciate heavy-handed tactics and what’s being called a desperate grab for control. Some see this as jury nullification in action, where a jury disregards the law and the facts of a case because they believe the law is unjust or the government’s actions are overreaching. In other words, the grand juries are essentially saying, “We don’t agree with what you’re doing.”
The legal strategy employed in these cases is interesting. Some believe that defendants refusing to waive their right to a speedy trial could lead to acquittals, especially given the overwhelming dockets and the challenges the prosecution will face in presenting their case. This strategy is particularly effective since Trump’s administration is, in general, perceived to be driven by questionable motives. The idea is that the prosecution won’t be able to convince juries to convict people in the current political climate.
The situation also highlights the critical role of juries in our democracy. There’s a suggestion that the focus on these so-called crime crackdowns is a distraction from dealing with actual wrongdoers. The argument is that the administration is selecting who to prosecute based on loyalty rather than qualification. Incompetence is a key word to describe the administration. It also points to the idea that the grand juries are playing a role in fighting back.
The context is crucial. Many feel that the crackdowns are born out of the president’s actions which are seen as illegal. They point out that if the initial actions are unlawful, then everything that follows may well be thrown out in court. It’s like an illegal search where any evidence found is rendered inadmissible.
There is, however, a potential for this situation to escalate. Some have expressed concerns about potential attempts to bypass grand juries, perhaps by shifting tactics. This is likely because the grand juries’ actions are an obstruction to the process the administration wants to go through, and any failure to get an indictment represents a failure of that process.
In conclusion, the refusal of federal grand juries in D.C. to indict those caught up in Trump’s crime crackdown is a noteworthy event. It represents a form of resistance against the administration’s actions, and reflects a broader concern about the direction of government and the integrity of legal processes. While the situation remains dynamic, the grand juries are sending a clear message of disapproval, and people are noticing.