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.

indictment. and indictment and then the underlying. criminal case. And so what we've been seeing of course. in high profile cases, you know, 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 privileged 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. And so, from these high-profile.

cases, because Donald Trump opened his mouth as. he always does or as he always does or. social media posts, all of these. vindictive things, 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 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 be 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 the prosecutor to be a. little more subtle about it, right? And. that that's how you would catch him. 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 into 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 "Ah, it. 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 a. leverage for the criminal defense. attorney to say, "All right, all right, don't refile. Why why don't you give my. guy a deal or my gal a deal, and let's. just get on with it." You know, or or. just think about the delay in some of.

these cases as well, you know, that are taking place, which. then clogs the system, which then causes. more problems spiraling out of control. This is unheard of. This is this that's. never happened before in the history of. the United States. I want to bring in. Harry Litman from the Talking Fed's. YouTube channel, podcast, and Substack. And Harry, I guess when people when we. talk about grand juries, you know, it's. it's 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 the most serious. and. uh just. elementary blunders in the grand jury, the top 15 or whatever, uh 14 of them. would be in the last year. Look, if. there's a sort of understanding, uh it's it is just as you say, you're.

alone in the grand jury and you have the. old saw of you could indict a ham. 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 they talk. to them, uh you know, just one-on-one. Things. that like you go to in DOJ, you really.

do, you go to a sort of baby prosecutor. 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're alone with them, and that's perilous. They're supposed to. be an independent bullwark. 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 in. a grand jury, it's in some ways like a. little bit boring. It's a little because. you just have to stay on script, ask. only certain questions. There are There. are things you have to tell them you do, answer their questions. It is They. 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. screw-ups 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 US attorney level, the. presidentially appointed level, where. they want to 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 That's. why most federal. cases wind up as as wins for the feds. 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 might as. mighty do as well. You're going to have. to turn over some of it. It will. eventually see the light of day. But. judges almost don't want to hear about.

this. They just assume that you 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 mis-. 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. And 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. know, you'll let these citizens good and. true say, "Okay, I think it's it's. it it sounds on the square." And if you. don't, and and one other point, Ben, you. know, the grand jury, you got to get a. majority to say, "That seems like a.

crime." You're eventually going to have. to get a 12-person jury to 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 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 the sort of. deprivation of individual rights. is 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? Cuz 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 and. that they need, I mean, preliminarily, um, before bringing the true bill to a. grand jury in order to get that. indictment, you know, you've done a lot. of 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 often times. you just need the FBI agent or the.

person on the investigative file because. they're allowed to testify to hearsay in. the grand jury room itself unlike in the. after the indictment and in 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 know, you. bring in the FBI agent. And you say, "Hey, please identify yourself." And. what's your background? And at some. point you were 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. founded it was a da da da this. Thank. you. All right, everybody. Here it is. Can you see, you know, I want you all to. take a vote. You know, that's it. It it. it the fact that you would need to I I 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 for Like why. would you even do you don't need to do. that? Is it. >> [laughter]. >> All right, let's. >> It's Look, it's so true. That and you're. what you're talking about is what. happens all the time including in these. cases. That's like um grand jury. practice with training wheels. Prosecutors sort of joke about it. You. could you could just sit there and and. say, "What happened next?" or even just. "Next?" or "Then?" Leading questions are. okay. Hearsay is okay. You got to be.

sure that the agent is saying it. straight, etc. And as you say, uh Ben, you 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 um. uh really scandalous that they could. screw up so badly. You mentioned Chicago. and the US attorney there had to go in.

and get a dressing down. that guy is had been the office a long. time from the judge and then he they. still sort of snatched defeat from the. jaws. of victory. I guarantee you you have. you ever go to the dentist office and. they have here's the good guy Goof. 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 they're 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. so completely. as I say like you know, just.

kindergarten stuff that they're messing. up. It's one of the many ways in which. former prosecutors are like. dumbfounded as well as disgusted by. what's going on in this Department of. Justice. In all my time in the DOJ and I. mean not not my cases at all my time in. the case in the different offices I was. in, I saw once where there where juries. resisted and didn't do a true bill. I. saw zero times of these kinds of.

violations and and now there's an. epidemic of them. It's such a it's such. an indication of some you know, 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 Talking Feds on YouTube. Then, in. the comments, tell Harry Ben says hi. Talking Feds. Thanks, Harry. >> That's B E N. Thank you, Ben. >> Yeah, as opposed to hen, H E N. All.

right. >> Want to stay plugged in? Become a. subscriber to our Substack [music] at. midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps. from Ron Filipkowski, ad-free episodes. of our podcast, and more exclusive. content only available at midasplus.com.