“A grand jury can be empaneled anywhere...”
Of course a federal grand jury can be impaneled anywhere, but if you (and the ignorant author of the piece you are citing) had bothered to read the statutes, you would know that a grand jury can only prosecute crimes that were committed in the jurisdiction where they are impaneled.
Here, I’ll save you some time and link you to a more appropriate source to get the relevant knowledge than a journalist, the Handbook for Federal Grand Jurors:
“... the federal grand jury’s function is to determine whether a person shall be tried for a serious federal crime alleged to have been committed within the district where it sits.” (page 2)
“It should be borne in mind that a federal grand jury can take action only upon federal crimes that have been committed within the district in which it has been impaneled.” (page 3)
“District:
The geographical area over which the federal district court where the grand jury sits and the grand jury itself have jurisdiction. The territorial limitations of the district will be explained to the grand jury by the district judge.” (Glossary - Page 8)
http://www.ndd.uscourts.gov/jury/jury_handbook_grand_jurors.pdf
So they can only act with the boundaries of the federal district court where the grand jury is impaneled. There is only one federal district court in Utah, and it covers only the state of Utah:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judicial_district
Therefore any grand jury that Huber impanels in Utah can only charge people for crimes committed in the state of Utah.
Maybe you “wanna try again?”
First clown the Illegal spying was done by unmasking the President etc.
Using the NSA database.
Which is in UTAH
Second you left off a critical part of the rules of grand juries but I’m sure it was just an accident
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure › TITLE V. VENUE › Rule 18. Place of Prosecution and Trial
Rule 18. Place of Prosecution and Trial
Unless a statute or these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed. The court must set the place of trial within the district with due regard for the convenience of the defendant, any victim, and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1979 Amendment
This amendment is intended to eliminate an inconsistency between rule 18, which in its present form has been interpreted not to allow trial in a division other than that in which the offense was committed except as dictated by the convenience of the defendant and witnesses.
28 U.S.C. §1861. This language does not mean that the Act requires “the trial court to convene not only in the district but also in the division
wherein the offense occurred,” as:
There is no hint in the statutory history that the Jury Selection Act was
intended to do more than provide improved judicial machinery so that grand and petit jurors would be random by the use of objective qualification criteria to ensure a representative cross section.
(Do you think a district that went 9 to 1 for Hillary is a “representative cross section?)
TRY AGAIN
PS Uranium1 company is from Utah too
https://www.kuer.org/post/how-tiny-utah-town-got-thrown-real-russia-scandal#stream/0
It actually makes sense to look for answers in Utah.
There’s uranium here.
Also, Utah used to have Uranium One properties, like a processing plant at Shootering Canyon in Garfield County and some idle mines. Even a lease on the town of Ticaboo.
In fact, a Utah state official reviewed the Uranium One deal.