Summary of the Text:
This article discusses a surprising trend: grand juries are increasingly refusing to indict cases brought by prosecutors, notably those that appear politically motivated or vindictive.
Key Points:
* High-Profile Failures: Letitia James (NY Attorney General) failed to secure indictments against James Comey after multiple attempts. Similarly, Jeanine Pirro (former Fox commentator) failed three times to get a grand jury to indict an anti-ICE protester.
* Broader Trend: This isn’t isolated. The DOJ has seen numerous rejections of indictments, even in cases stemming from protests and immigration raids. One US Attorney’s office secured indictments in less then 25% of felony cases.
* Return to Original Purpose: The author argues this is a positive development, as it represents a return to the grand jury’s original function as a check on government power. Historically, grand juries were designed to prevent arbitrary prosecution by the ruling power (originally the King).
* Resistance to Political Prosecutions: The article suggests that these rejections indicate a public unwillingness to support prosecutions perceived as politically motivated or intended to intimidate citizens.
* Constitutional Safeguard: The Constitution mandates grand jury indictment for federal felonies, a safeguard intended to protect against unjust charges.
In essence, the article highlights a potential resurgence of the grand jury as a vital component of the checks and balances system, pushing back against what the author views as overreach by the current governance and its DOJ.
