Hollywood movies huh? Before 1946, Obama would have been indicted by a grand jury under the avalanche of evidence against him. Grand juries are no longer independent OBot. And for your information BOt, the word “runaway” grand jury is a BS term that was created by a federal rule change. See below:
“A presentment is generally drafted from the knowledge and findings of the jurors themselves, rather than a prosecutor, and signed individually by each juror who agrees with it. A presentment at common law stood public with or without approval of a prosecutor or court. In the early days of the Republic, the Attorney General hinted that a federal prosecutor was obliged to indict upon the presentment by the grand jury.[96] Thus, Rule 6 represented a monumental — and deliberate — change of grand jury practice.[97] Orfield’s peculiar use of the term “runaway” grand jury in the committee notes may mark both the advent of this term into the legal lexicon[98] and the loss to history of true grand jury independence.[99]”
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htm
As for me caring, if Barack Hussein Obama II was to be indicted, impeached, tried, convicted and removed from office tomorrow, so be it. If he is exonerated and finishes out his term, so be it. I care ONLY about resolving the issue one way or the other. In my personal opinion a Grand Jury investigation with subpoena power is the best way to accomplish that.
BS. After literally thousand of postings over the years in defense of Obama troll-BOT, I highly doubt you have changed your spots. You just take a position you think covers up the rest of your BS. You’ll be back to protecting your Obama and getting paid by Soros.
Its time to give up and move on. There is no one with standing on the civil side and there are no legitimate grand juries to indict on the criminal side.
I am left to wonder however how a federal grand jury under the skillful direction of US Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was able to indict Democrat Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and provide enough evidence of criminal malfeasance that a Democrat controlled legislature in Ilinois impeached, tried, convicted and removed Blagojevich from office in less than two months.
I guess that Grand Jury “ran away” in the right direction!
Are you just stupid DemBOt? A definite rhetorical question since the answer is obviously yes.
Red Steel informs us that all grand juries are “runaway grand juries,”
No you dingbat, I cite a source that is case study about the history of grand juries in particular of a rule change that you apparently did not comprehend. I'll let you try to figure out which is which.
Here it is again in a larger excerpt. It looks like some guy named Orfield made up the term "runaway grand jury" to justify his federal rule change that helps corrupt government officials get away...
A "runaway" grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's "runaway" grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.[7]
Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes — grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors.[8] One recent criminal procedure treatise sums up the inherent inconsistency of the modern grand jury regime:
In theory, the grand jury is a body of independent citizens that can investigate any crime or government misdeed that comes to its attention. In practice, however, the grand jury is dependent upon the prosecutor to bring cases and gather evidence. Except in rare instances of a "runaway" grand jury investigation of issues that a prosecutor does not want investigated, the powers of the grand jury enhance the powers of the prosecutor.[9]
Thus, while the grand jury still exists as an institution — in a sterile, watered-down, and impotent form — its decisions are the mere reflection of the United States Justice Department.[10] In practice, the grand jury's every move is controlled by the prosecution, whom the grand jury simply does not know it is supposed to be pitted against.[11] " "The term "runaway grand jury" did not appear in legal literature until the mid-twentieth century.[12] The reason for this is that the term would have been inapplicable in the context of previous generations: every American grand jury known by the Constitution's Framers would be considered a runaway grand jury under modern criminal procedure. Constitutional framers knew criminal law to be driven by private prosecution and did not contemplate the omnipresence of government prosecutors.[13] Additionally, early American common law placed far more power and investigative judgment in the hands of grand juries than does the criminal procedure of the twentieth century." And in particular OBot that supports my statement above,
According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, who served as a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Rule 6 consciously decided that the term "presentment" should not be used in the Rules — even though the term appears in the Constitution.[94] "Retention," wrote Orfield, "might encourage the use of the 'run-away' grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney."[95]
Again dingbat, read for comprehensions:
"Thus, Rule 6 represented a monumental — and deliberate — change of grand jury practice.[97] Orfield's peculiar use of the term "runaway" grand jury in the committee notes may mark both the advent of this term into the legal lexicon[98] and the loss to history of true grand jury independence.[99]
Its time to give up and move on. There is no one with standing on the civil side and there are no legitimate grand juries to indict on the criminal side.
It's time for you to give up your bullcrap.