Leftist Lawfare Elation, After Fourth Indictment Some Obviously Convinced President Donald Trump Is A Ham Sandwich

First things first…‘What is an indictment?’
“An indictment is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime.” –from ‘Indictment’ via wikipedia.org

The key word there is ACCUSATION. The problem is that, since 2020 and the antifablm (or blmantifa) riots, prosecutors in some jurisdictions don’t take law and legal procedures seriously. You can thank George Soros for that, since he used his fortune to install virtually all of those doing so.

The same people (democRATs, but also RINOs…Republicans In Name Only, so not actually real Republicans), who push that the United States of America is a ‘democracy'[SIC] are using the indictment process to push another lie.

They are the low hanging fruit, and you can always tell because they have no knowledge of how our legal system actually works. And that lie they are pushing is that President Donald Trump is guilty of ‘muh crimes’.

Trump is actually guilty of trying to stop others (them!) from committing crimes, failing, and instead being accused of their crimes by them. Here is some ammo to burst their delusion bubbles.

There is an old saying in legal circles (as opposed to illegal circles, which, as the name indicates, are against the law), that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The origin of that is disputed, and we have found two versions, from roughly the same time period.

‘Where did indict a ham sandwich come from?’
“Word researcher Barry Popik found the line attributed to Thomas Puccio, a Justice Department attorney who was a lead prosecutor in the Abscam federal corruption case. In February 1982, Washington Post columnist Jack Anderson quoted Puccio: “’I could,’ he boasted in front of witnesses, ‘indict a ham sandwich.”, –from ‘‘Indict a Ham Sandwich’ Remains on the Menu for Judges, Prosecutors Saying about prosecutorial power stretches back decades; the upstate New York connection’ via wsj.com.

AND…‘Why is it so easy to indict?’
“Since, traditionally, the defense doesn’t get a say, it’s pretty easy to get a grand jury to indict someone in most cases. In fact, it’s so easy in most cases that a former New York state [Court of Appeals, 1985 to 1992] chief judge, Sol Wachtler, famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.”” –from ‘You could “indict a ham sandwich”’ via mymetmedia.com.

No matter who said it first, and why, what matters is that it is true. In fact, it is also virtually automatic!

‘How often do grand juries decline to indict?’
“Grand juries rarely decline to indict. In 2010, government statistics showed that federal grand juries brought charges more than 99% of the time.” –from “How US Grand Juries Work” via voanews.com

‘Why do grand juries always indict?’
“In part because there’s no one on the “other side” to contest the prosecutor’s evidence, grand juries almost always return an indictment as requested by the prosecutor. According to a U.S. Department of Justice study, “Grand juries are notorious for being ‘rubberstamps’ for the prosecutor for virtually all routine criminal matters.” (McDonald, William F., Plea Bargaining: Critical Issues and Common Practices (1985).)”

AND…”It’s also suggested that grand juries rubber stamp prosecutors’ charges because grand jurors are not adept at evaluating evidence like judges are—making it easier to convince a grand jury than a judge that the defendant should stand for trial.” –both parts from ‘Why Prosecutors Choose Grand Juries Instead of Preliminary Hearings’ via nolo.com.

So you have ONE authority figure telling you things, and nobody to question any of it. There is, however, an alternative to using the indictment process.

“In felony cases, you are entitled to a preliminary hearing where a judge determines whether there is probable cause to believe you committed the charges listed in the charging document. Note that if you are indicted by a grand jury, you do not get to have a preliminary hearing. This is because the grand jury essentially serves the same purpose as the preliminary hearing.” –from ‘Indicted vs Charged – What is the Difference?’ via shouselaw.com.

It might sound like they are the same / serve the same purpose, but there are two sneaky reasons that prosecutors favor indictments over preliminary hearings: first, there is no judge present during the indictment process, and second, a grand jury is a non-adversarial proceeding, meaning that the accused / defense aren’t allowed to present their side.

So, of course, more than 99% of the time a grand jury indicts someone! They are only getting ONE side of the story, and in 2023, that is increasingly from an alt-far-left-communist-democRAT persecutor (aka prosecutor).

Another sneaky reason they use grand juries is actually diabolical: hearsay!

‘What is hearsay?’
“Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts, which is then offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter. The problem with hearsay is that when the person being quoted is not present, it becomes impossible to establish credibility.” –from ‘Hearsay’ via law.cornell.edu.

To be clear, this isn’t someone repeating something THEY heard, but rather they are repeating as fact something someone else allegedly heard! Remember, they tried this in the democRAT run ‘congressional hearings’ regarding the events of January 6, 2021 (the BS story about President Trump grabbing the steering wheel of the Presidential limousine).

Which brings us to…‘Can you use hearsay during a trial?’
“Hearsay is a statement by someone to a witness who, while testifying in court, repeats the statement. The statement is hearsay only if it is offered for the truth of its contents. In general, courts exclude hearsay evidence in trials, criminal or otherwise.” –from ‘Hearsay Statements in Criminal Court’ via nolo.com.

‘Can hearsay be used in a grand jury?’
“As a general rule, it is proper to present hearsay to the grand jury, United States v. Calandra 414 U.S. 338 (1974).” –from ‘Grand Jury | JM – Department of Justice’ via justice.gov

So, you can’t use it in an actual trial in court, but hearsay is allowed before a grand jury. In our view, this taints any indictment.

So a quick recap of issues…‘What is the problem with grand juries?’
“Potential dangers. The secrecy of a grand jury presents some dangers. The defendant does not know the evidence being considered, does not have a right to be present, and cannot question the evidence early in the criminal justice process.” –from ‘How do grand juries work? Their major role in criminal justice, and why prosecutors are using them to investigate efforts to overturn the 2020 election’ via theconversation.com.

And a quick reminder…‘Is a person who is indicted by a grand jury always guilty?’
“A grand jury does not determine guilt or innocence. A grand jury indictment is required for all federal felonies. However, a defendant can waive the right to a grand jury indictment and have a judge make the probable cause determination at a hearing.” –from ‘What, Exactly, Is a Grand Jury? – MoloLamken LLP’ via mololamken.com.

What we have now, again, thanks to Soros, is the left resorting to ‘lawfare’ when they don’t get their way (aka us asking no questions and instead marching dutifully towards communism).

‘What is an example of lawfare?’
“Lawfare is the use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter individual’s usage of their legal rights.”
AND
“The term may refer to the use of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, wasting their time and money (e.g. SLAPP suits), or winning a public relations victory.” — from ‘Lawfare’ via wikipedia.org.

Globalists are afraid of President Trump, and also of the ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA) movement. If they succeed in ‘getting’ him, we are next.

We saw one leftist ask what we on the right are referring to when we say that we need to take our country back. The answer to them is “you, you commie bastards!”