Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
Yes.
What does failing twice in a week mean?
The Ham sandwich is the Deep State?
Sometimes I wonder if it's a projection of corruption to believe everyone is corrupt.
The Shop
Free shipping: VITALMX
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
The Deep State feeds the Narrative Following Idiotas…
Hence, those same Idiotas, when on a Grand Jury, continue to support The Narrative.
But, I digress.
I didn’t mean to interrupt your preconditioned news feed for the minions.
Same as it ever was, Same as it ever was.
Idiotas
Yo Apl...you good bro? I'm getting MAJOR pre-meltdown (his final meltdown) EIDave vibes from your recent threads/posts...and that's not a good thing...so you alright?
It is accurate, but the ease of grand jury indictments isn’t directly related to the strength of the prosecutors real case. The reason grand jury indictments are easy to win is because you can present evidence that is not subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence for federal court (and substantially adopted by most states). So things like hearsay and dubious documents can make it into a grand jury where they would be kicked out of a regular trial. Because you can introduce a host of legally invalid evidence, it’s easy to get the indictment.
However, some cases have minimal evidence that’s pretty straightforward, so the grand jury is looking almost exclusively at evidence that fits the FRE. Those cases can be closer calls, where the prosecutor has a good faith basis for a charge but doesn’t have mounds of hearsay and unauthenticated documents to push through the grand jury. In a case like that, failing to get a grand jury indictment does not mean the case is clearly unwinnable just because it failed to make it through the indictment process.
But you have some strong opinions and will understand the news in the way that best supports those opinions.
In politics/government? They are ALL corrupt. Each and every single last one of them.
Apparently, only if you throw said sandwich at an ICE agent.
If you’re a left leaning liberal loon, the law doesn’t apply to you.
From Chat GPT:
The Trump and Letitia James cases did not have different grand-jury evidence thresholds because one was state and one was federal, nor because of who the prosecutor was. The basic legal standard for a grand jury to indict is essentially the same across U.S. jurisdictions.
Below is a clear breakdown:
1. The legal threshold is the same: “Probable Cause.”
Whether federal or state, a grand jury indicts when prosecutors present enough evidence to show:
Probable cause that a crime was committed and the accused likely committed it.
This is much lower than:
“preponderance of evidence”
“clear and convincing evidence”
“beyond a reasonable doubt”
And it does not change based on:
who the defendant is
who the prosecutor is
whether it's a state or federal case
2. So why were the outcomes so different?
🔹 Not because state vs. federal law uses different standards
Both systems use probable cause as the threshold for an indictment.
🔹 The difference was in what the grand juries believed about the evidence
In the Letitia James case, two federal grand juries declined to indict — which is extremely rare. That means they did not think the prosecutors met even the low probable-cause threshold with the evidence presented.
In the Trump criminal cases, state and federal grand juries did find probable cause and indicted.
This reflects differences in:
the strength or clarity of evidence
the persuasiveness of prosecutors
possibly the perceived credibility of witnesses
case complexity
But not differences in the legal threshold itself.
3. Does the prosecutor’s identity (AG, DA, Special Counsel) change the threshold?
No.
All prosecutors, regardless of title, face the exact same grand-jury requirement:
Convince a majority of grand jurors that probable cause exists.
It doesn’t matter if the case is brought by:
a federal U.S. Attorney
a state Attorney General
a District Attorney
a Special Counsel
The grand jury’s legal role is unchanged.
Bottom Line
The Trump and James cases did not have substantially different legal thresholds.
They had different results, but that was because of:
the evidence presented
how persuasive the prosecutors were
how the grand jurors interpreted the facts
—not because of differences in law or prosecutors.
You asked ChatGPT if there was a difference in the evidentiary standard between two different grand juries. I stated the evidentiary standard in grand juries differs from the standard in actual trials. The threshold for establishing probable cause is a legal standard, not a rule of evidence. They are different concepts.
Chat GPT isn’t going to be helpful if you don’t even know what you are asking it. Here’s a prompt to try on chat gpt: what evidence can be submitted to a grand jury that would not be admissible in a trial?
The point is that the DOJ could have used any and all evidence just like in the Trump indictments. The fact that their allegedly 'good' evidence (not "hearsay and dubious documents") wasn't enough to warrant even enough probably cause for the indictment, twice in a week.
The current DOJ did not have any more hurdles to jump through than did the prosecutors in the Trump case, yet still couldn't get it done. Even with, as you say, not having to stay within the bounds of the Federal Rules of Evidence limitations. The current DOJ didn't have to prove guilt any more than the previous prosecutors.
Not sure how many here have served on a Grand Jury, be it state or federal. I was on a seven month grand jury that met twice a month. The prosecutor (DA) tried to persuade the jury to go one way or another depending on evidence. There were cases that we sent to trial that the DA didn't want, but looking at the information given, we felt the cases would turn out the way they should...and every one of them did, some guilty and some not. That time period was well before the division this country is going through now. The people on that grand jury were normal everyday citizens that had to make a decision to send someone to trial and possibly ruin their life if innocent. It was not taken for granted by any juror.
Things are different now, soo partisan, seemingly less empathy, emboldened criminals, and more people taking political sides without an open mind. I feel for the young people in this world, and hope they can get it back on keel, but am also glad that I'm old and don't have to see the the bottom.
If any decent lawyer could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich, there are some ignorant pieces of shit sitting on that Grand Jury.
L. James knowingly signed her name to a loan with fraudulent info. I don’t know how much more evidence is needed.
Think of it this way. Let’s say you have two cases, Case A and Case B.
Case A has a large number of witnesses and documentary evidence based on internal records and communications in a private business. In Case A, the inadmissible evidence is plentiful and you estimate that you have a 99% chance of conviction if you could include all the available evidence at trial. However, about half the evidence is hearsay or can’t be authenticated, so your chances at trial are more like 60%.
Case B involves one party and documents submitted and signed by that party to a state agency. There isn’t a mountain of evidence, but the evidence that exists is all admissible pursuant to the FRE. You estimate your chances of winning at trial to be 60%.
So both cases have a 60% chance of conviction. But Case A has a ton of invalid evidence that you can present to the grand jury, so you have a 99% chance of getting an indictment, even though your chances at trial are pretty low. Case B, on the other hand, has little evidence beyond what is admissible so its chances of clearing a grand jury are 60%. While the two cases have equal probability at trial, one is much stronger in a grand jury proceeding than the other.
Now consider the cases at hand. Trump’s indictment was based on falsification of business records. This involved communications to his Cooley Law attorney in regards to paying off a porn star and recording those payments in one of Trump’s businesses. There were multiple parties involved and the records were kept in a private record. There was a copious amount of hearsay and invalid evidence being created by those parties that could make it into a grand jury proceeding but fail to make it into trial. This is more like case A. For Leticia James, the case is about her allegedly lying on mortgage forms that were submitted to state government offices. There are few parties involved and the documents are likely all valid. Most if not all of what will be submitted at the grand jury will also make it into trial. This is more like case B.
The whole point of the phrase ““Any decent lawyer could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich…..” is that grand juries are special proceedings that shouldn’t be given any significant weight in evaluating the strength of a case. But you’re doing exactly that because you’re assuming the case is weak based on the grand jury proceeding.
What would you say if the President knowingly signed his name to a loan with fraudulent info?
If you can't even get a grand jury to indict, you got no fucking case. Split all the hairs and weave all the pretzel logic you want but it just comes down to that.
Pit Row
If your evidence for Case B is more ‘factual’ and admissible, and less ‘hearsay and dubious documents’ than Case A but you still can’t make the case for probable cause, then your premise of them both having the same chance of being convicted is flawed. If you have a 60% chance of getting a conviction, then probable cause should be much higher than that, obviously.
I think you have a fundamental inability to understand the argument. You're kind of stuck in a broken syllogism that I won't be able to talk you out of. Best of luck to you.
Sadly, not the case. My father in law was a grand jury whore. I have no idea how he got chosen so much, but he did often. ( Maybe a Galveston county thing) anyway, he told me that there was a huge rate of racism in the process and we couldn't find a way to fix it.
So, to narrow it down, kid messed up, it's his people, let him go. Or, kid messes up, not their people, off to jail.
We have an imperfect system. It's great on paper, but in skin, it has issues.
It’s a flawed argument. What it mainly shows is that someone will try to rationalize the irrational to attempt to make themselves feel better about their opinions and beliefs.
Best of luck to you.
Thanks! You as well!
There are those of us that believe too many of us are what Orwell’s 1984 was all about.
“You just continue to believe what the talking heads tell you.”
But, I digress.
And so do you. Your just on the other side of an extreme.
The human element will always be there. It's one of the things I don't like about our jury system. However, a grand jury doesn't put anybody in jail. They merely hand down an indictment and in general, grand juries are rubber stamps. Maybe you were referring to juries in general. In that case yes. It's an easily hacked system if you have the money. It's the main reason that I'm against the death penalty. People are ignorant as hell. You see it every day in politics.
Would you prefer the human element was removed and replaced by an AI?
Post a reply to: “Any decent lawyer could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich…..”