Trump GETS BUSTED in MASSIVE GRAND JURY FRAUD!!!

An arbitrary fishing expedition, an unconstitutional effort to coerce, a convenient pretext for launching a criminal investigation.This is just some of the language, scathing language that federal judges have used to refer to the abuse of the grand jury process by the Department of Justice.Politico was just out with an expose chronicling what's going on in a nationwide basis as federal judges appointed by all different presidents from different political parties are out there right now questioning, examining what normally would constitute secret grand jury proceedings that when the DOJ had the presumption of regularity Judges only in the rarest of circumstances would ever scrutinize what took place within a grand jury, which is often the precursor to an indictment and then the underlying criminal case.And so what we've been seeing, of course, in high -profile cases, whether it was the peaceful protesters in Chicago and the grand jury misconduct that took place there, whether it was the first James Comey case, where it was Lindsey Halligan who didn't even belong in the room, and then she went on and brought an FBI agent who was exposed to attorney -client privilege information, and then they had the grand jury foreperson sign a true bill that wasn't the actual true bill, that wasn't the indictment that the other grand jurors even saw.I mean, you're seeing things that somebody who took criminal law in law school for one day wouldn't make the egregious errors that this Trump DOJ is making.just That gave a lot of the criminal defendants in these cases across the country something that would never exist before.

Hey, the president of the United States is essentially saying, I'm a vindictive asshole and I'm seeking retribution.So federal judges, while it's very rare to delve into grand jury secrecy, if there was ever one of those exceptions where you actually do, It's where the president of the United States is saying, I am vindictively prosecuting you.And so it started with that cluster of weaponized cases.But then, for example, you take a look at what's happening in the federal courts in Chicago.Once the federal judges saw the behavior, other criminal defense attorneys started to say, you know what, judge?We've seen a lot of misconduct by the DOJ in discovery.

They're not turning over documents.They're behaving a certain way.Judge, we need to see the grand jury because it does seem like this Trump regime has engaged in egregious conduct.And then in those less high profile cases, guess what happened?The Trump DOJ people who were in the grand jury room would say things like, all right, everybody, all right.I want to vouch for cases today.

I mean, there's something called no vouching allowed.You can't vouch for the case.You can't say, as a prosecutor, you can't tell the grand jury, I personally feel strongly, so you got to do me a solid, right?That should be fairly obvious.And to the extent there would be vouching, you would expect a prosecutor to be a little more subtle about it.right?

And that that's how you would catch them.But no, no, no, no, no, no.It's like them saying, I am going to rob your house.Watch me rob it.I'm stepping in to rob your house.That's the kind of prosecutorial equivalent of what they're doing.

By the way, in cases involving massive crimes that actually, while everyone's afforded a presumption of innocence outside of some of these You know, a general they are.But there are some cases that you would think, sounds like a meritorious case.You know, this person seems like maybe they were involved in fraud or maybe they were involved in something.Even in those types of cases, not talking about the ones where Trump's like egregiously weaponized, but just some of the run of the mill cases, the prosecutors would seem to say, all right, let's get out of here quickly.It's Friday, I'm bringing you my best.I'm vouching for these cases.

Sign off on them.I'll get you out of here quickly.Don't worry about it.I'll show you the evidence later.So the federal judges are like.You're doing it there.

So what this has spawned across the country right now are lots of cases, not just the high profile ones that frequently get covered more than others, but lots of other important federal criminal cases that are getting dismissed because of technicalities and misconduct in the grand jury proceedings.And we're perhaps even seeing where they're not getting dismissed, where the DOJ gets caught.Well, that gives leverage for the criminal defense attorney to say, all right, all right, don't refile it.Why don't you give my guy a deal or my gal a deal, and let's just get on with it?Or just think about the delay in some of these cases as well that are taking place, which then clogs the system, which then causes more problems spiraling out of control.This is unheard of.

This has never happened before in the history of the United States.I want to bring in Harry Litman from the Talking Feds YouTube channel, podcast and subject.And Harry, I guess when people – when we talk about grand juries, it's odd in the sense that in our system, in a grand jury, it's secret that the judge isn't there, that the target who may be indicted, their lawyers aren't in the room.They're not in the room.It's the prosecutor.It's the grand jury built on a presumption of regularity that the prosecutor follows the law.

And here we have this massive, massive contagion of misconduct that's spread where the whole system's breaking, and it's broken.

Let's start with your point about unheard of.I, in all my years in the DOJ, never saw a single instance of the sort that we have, a dozen or more.I'm confident that if you could rank the most serious and just elementary blunders in the grand jury, the top 15 or whatever, 14 of them would be in the last year.Look, there's a sort of understanding.It is just as you say, you're alone in the grand jury.and you have the old saw of you could indict a hand sandwich.

What that is really saying, Ben, is these citizens are under your influence, and you can do a lot to sway them one way or another.I've got nothing but good cases for you today, one of them said here, or they talk to them, you know, just one -on -one, things that, like, you go to, and DOJ you really do, you go to a sort of baby prosecutor's school.And this would be, you know, along the order of like sitting at the wrong table.It is so basic.But the deal is, yes, you'llalone with them, and that's perilous.

They're supposed to be an independent bulwark.But because they're subject to influence, you need to play it by the book.It is so straightforward, the things you can do, the things you can't do, really, When you first start in a grand jury, it's in some ways like a little bit.boring, because you just have to stay on script, ask only certain questions.If there are things you have to tell them, you do answer their questions.You're not allowed to do it for a couple years, or you go in with someone else and learn.

But it is so straightforward.And the kinds of script we're seeing again and again, the very best that can be said for them is they are just kindergarten blunders and the worst, you could say, is worse than that.You have certain kinds of, including we had some among these have been at the U .S.attorney level, the presidentially appointed level, where they wanna be big shots or something and throw their weight around.And as you say, judges typically have this understanding.

This is a big part of the presumption of regularity.You've got 36 citizens in there.Yeah, if you wanted, you could say, just trust me, everything will be fine.Or I'm not even showing you, this is what Lindsey Halligan did.I'm not even showing you some of the other stuff I'm vouching, that's the basic word, rather than presenting evidence for them to evaluate.And typically it's very strong evidence.

That's why most federal cases wind up as wins forfeds.It's typically pretty strong.You present the evidence, you do nothing more.And by the way, it is secret except if and when you go to trial, and you know this, and probably Midas Mighty do as well, you're going to have to turn over some of it.We'll eventually see the light of day.

But judges almost don't want to hear about this.They just assume that what happened in there was on the up and up.And if it wasn't, the kinds of headaches, because you can imagine, each of these, they're not just elementary blunders with a grand jury.They are violations of due process.They are, you know, the rules that underlie what you can do in the grand jury have everything to do with giving due process to potentially charged defendants.And these jokers have come in again and again.

Actually, I have to amend a little.Yes, some of them are just bonehead moves, but that it could happen that what it, what it, evidences of the absence of training and the cavalier nature and maybe even the very weak cases that the DOJ is now bringing.It's gobsmacking for former prosecutors because it's so easy not to break the rules because they are so drummed into you and so serious.As long as you play it totally straight, you're okay and you should be okay.You'll let these citizens, good and true, say, okay, I think it sounds on the square.And if you don't, and one other point, Ben, the grand jury, you've got to get a majority to say, it seems like a crime.

You're eventually going to have to get a 12 -person juryto say unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges are solid.And if you're cutting these kinds of corners in the grand jury and having to take these extra advantages, oh, trust me, you guys, it'll be all right.You're bringing crappy cases to market in front of judges.And they're seeing that as well.And that's making them want to go back and you know, how was this charged in the first place?

Typically an area that judges, you know, blindfold themselves from.That's the DOJ.Of course, they do it on the up and up.And when it turns out they don't, the gravity of this sort of deprivation of individual rights so serious that you see them really just going nuts.That's what we are seeing.But I just want to underscore, man, oh, man, these are such blunders.

These are you know, you don't even they're not they're people who aren't even don't even know where to stand in the field, that they could make these kinds of mistakes.It's comical, if it weren't so Tragic, right?

Because Harry, the process would be the prosecutor conducts an exhaustive investigation, brings in witnesses, has the full resources of the FBI, gets all of these statements.If ultimately it's not a good case, They don't bring the case.After getting all of the evidence that they need, I mean preliminarily, before bringing the true bill to a grand jury in order to get that indictment, you've done a lot of work.Once you've done all of that work, you then basically type out the true bill, so it's printed out, the counts are all there.You call your witness and oftentimes you just need the FBIagent or the person on the investigative file because they're allowed to testify to hearsay in the grand jury room itself, unlike after the indictment and the trial.

You bring the person, you bring your one witness, and usually, sometimes you may need more depending on the complexity, but some of these cases, you bring in the FBI agent.And you say, hey, please identify yourself.And what's your background?And at some point, you are investigating this case.And you began the investigation by looking at what?Da -da -da -da -da.

And then what happened next?And then what happened next?And then what happened?And what were your findings?And then what happened after that?And then what else did you find?

And the FBI agent goes, well, after all of this, I concluded it was a da -da -da -this.I was found that it was a da -da -da -this.Thank you.All right, everybody.Here it is.Can you see?

I want you all to take a vote.You know, that's it.The fact that you would need to, I wanted people to see it because the fact that with what I just did, somebody would need to go in and go, all right, all right, all right, all right.I got something for you today.The best case ever.I'm vouching.

Like, why would you even do?You don't need to do that.

Look, it's so true.And what you're talking about is what happens all the time, including in these cases.That's like grand jury practice with training wheels.And prosecutors sort of joke about it.You could just sit there and say, what happened next?Or even just Next, or then, leading questions are okay.

Hearsay is okay.You've got to be sure that the agent is saying it straight, et cetera.And as you say, Ben, you've got to have written it all out, but there is nothing to it in terms of these kinds of mistakes and violating due process.So, you know, these are just really scandalousthat they could screw up so badly.You mentioned Chicago and the U .

S.attorney there had to go in and get a dressing down.That guy had been in the office a long time from the judge and then they still sort of snatched a feat from the jaws.of victory.I guarantee you, you ever go to the dentist's office and they have, here's the good guy, Gallant, and here's the bad guy, Goofus?I mean, these are so elementary.

Goofus says, hey, I got a good case for you.They're so incredibly basic, and the screw -ups there, therefore, are some combination of fecklessness and indifference and maybe flat out cutting corners because they're inexperienced, they're nervous, they want to get that no true bill.And, you know, it is it's sad.so completely, as I say, just kindergarten stuff that they're messing up.It's one of the many ways in which former prosecutors are dumbfounded as well as disgusted by what's going on in this Department of Justice.In all my time in the DOJ, I mean, not my cases, in all my time in the DOJ, different offices I was in, I saw once where a jury's resisted and didn't do a true bill.

I saw zero times of these kinds of violations, and now there's an epidemic of them.It's such an indication of something is really rotten on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Everybody, make sure you subscribe to Harry Litman's YouTube channel.It's called the Talking Feds YouTube channel.Search TalkingFeds on YouTube.Then, in the comments, tell Harry, Ben says hi.TalkingFeds.Thanks, Harry.

That's B -E -N.Thank you, Ben.As opposed to hen, H -E -N.

All right.