By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A grand jury in Washington has rebuffed federal prosecutors’ attempts to indict six Democratic lawmakers, an unprecedented move following a video where the lawmakers urged military and intelligence members to disobey illegal orders. President Trump had publicly declared the lawmakers guilty of sedition, a capital offense, and U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro subsequently sought indictments. This rejection by the grand jury, while not entirely unprecedented in recent times, highlights a pattern of losses for the Trump administration before such bodies, signaling a decline in credibility with judges and citizens alike. The grand jury system, designed as a check on prosecutorial power, is reportedly questioning the integrity of federal prosecutors.
Read the original article here
The notion that the Trump administration is “unprecedentedly” losing credibility with judges and grand juries feels less like a surprise and more like a slow-motion inevitability. It’s striking to consider that the question is even being asked, implying there was a baseline of credibility to begin with. When nearly every public statement is perceived as a fabrication or an omission, and when the highest legal officials themselves seem to rely on prepared deflection tactics to navigate congressional inquiries, it naturally erodes trust. The fact that their own prosecutors are reportedly resigning in significant numbers further suggests a deep internal discord and a potential loss of faith in the administration’s legal strategies.
One of the key insights is how grand juries operate and what their role truly entails. While a grand jury’s primary function is to determine if there’s probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, the reality is far more nuanced. The barrier of probable cause is, by design, quite low, and prosecutors have considerable leeway in what evidence they present, even including hearsay. However, as observed from personal experience on a grand jury, these bodies are not simply rubber stamps for indictments. There’s a crucial distinction to be made between finding probable cause and finding sufficient grounds to proceed to trial.
Indeed, it is entirely possible for a grand jury to “no-bill” a case, meaning they do not return an indictment, even when probable cause exists. This can happen when the jurors, despite recognizing the legal standard, struggle to reconcile the evidence with their sense of justice. The instruction to keep “beyond a reasonable doubt” in mind, even at the probable cause stage, highlights this internal check. If the prosecution cannot convince a majority of the grand jurors that there is a strong likelihood of conviction, they may opt not to indict. This underscores the vital role of grand juries as a safeguard against potentially unjust prosecutions.
When a grand jury, acting as a serious deliberative body, takes its job seriously as a buffer between potential government overreach and the public, it is not surprising that they might reject a proposed indictment. The very existence of a grand jury system, with its peer review mechanism, provides a final layer of protection against what could otherwise be perceived as tyrannical actions. The satisfaction comes from knowing that this fundamental safety valve, designed to uphold justice, has functioned as intended.
However, there’s a sobering recognition that this system, while robust, is not infallible. The effectiveness of a grand jury can, to some extent, be influenced by the composition of its members. The concern arises from the possibility that in certain circumstances, a grand jury might be swayed by partisan beliefs rather than purely objective legal considerations. This randomness, much like other societal challenges, means that the system’s success is not guaranteed in every instance, but its function is essential nonetheless.
The continued perceived credibility with certain institutions, such as the Supreme Court, stands in stark contrast to the observed erosion of confidence elsewhere. The question then becomes, why has this disparity occurred? It begs the larger question of when, if ever, did the Trump administration possess significant credibility in the eyes of these judicial bodies to begin with? For many, the perceived power of the administration, rather than genuine credibility, has been the driving force behind its interactions with legal systems.
It’s bewildering to consider how any administration, characterized by consistent accusations of falsehood and the need for prepared defenses against scrutiny, could maintain a significant level of trust. The sheer volume of alleged deceptions and the perceived lack of accountability paint a picture of an entity that has never truly built credibility, but rather has relied on authority and political influence. The question of how such an administration maintains any level of public approval, even among a substantial minority, remains a perplexing aspect of the current political landscape.
The wheels of justice, often criticized for their slow pace, can be further hampered when the very entities they are meant to scrutinize are perceived as undermining the legal process. The notion that the administration might have *lost* credibility suggests it once possessed it, a point that many find difficult to accept. The common sentiment is that if something was never there to begin with, it cannot be lost. This perspective suggests that the current situation is not a decline, but rather a revelation of a pre-existing lack of standing.
The ongoing reality of the administration continuing to operate and exert influence despite these perceived credibility issues is a source of frustration for many. The argument that if the current leadership is still in power and seemingly acting without restraint, then pronouncements about lost credibility are premature or even irrelevant. This points to a deeper frustration with the perceived impunity that can accompany political power, even in the face of legal challenges.
The idea of the current situation being “unprecedented” is challenged by some, who argue that the true concern is not a new phenomenon but a continuation of behaviors that have always existed within the political sphere. While the special elections may offer some hope, the underlying concern is that fundamental aspects of the system, such as a Supreme Court majority perceived as aligned with a particular political faction, remain unchanged. This suggests that more systemic changes are needed before true confidence in the justice system can be restored.
The notion that the President, by simply wishing it so, could render illegal acts permissible is a chilling thought that directly contradicts established legal and military codes of conduct. The expectation that individuals in positions of power should adhere to principles of legality, rather than dictate them, is fundamental. The comparison to a historical figure known for egregious human rights violations, while extreme, highlights the fear that any deviation from established legal norms can lead down a dangerous path.
Ultimately, the recurring theme is the difficulty of losing something that was never truly possessed. The continuous cycle of alleged falsehoods and the need for increasingly elaborate defenses suggests that the foundation of credibility was absent from the start. The perceived deference towards powerful figures, even when their actions are questionable, raises concerns about the impartiality of institutions that are meant to be independent arbiters of justice. The question remains: when will this perceived lack of credibility translate into tangible consequences that uphold the rule of law?