5
3
3
Straightaway, Obama's promised "change" and "yes we can" became hard line foreign and domestic extremism, betraying his loyal constituency and any hope for an about-face from Bush's radical militarism. His populist hypocrisy now exposed, voters are losing faith, but most remain mindless about the harm he commits daily, much of it touching them directly.
Several recent articles explain, accessed through the following links:
click here click here click here click here
Many others add exclamation points about a rogue administration rampaging at home and globally, most recently involved in a failed Ecuadorean coup. This week, we also saw Obama sending FBI goon squads against Chicago and Minneapolis anti-war/pro-Palestinian activists. No arrests were made, but their homes were ransacked, agents seizing computers, cell phones, books, photos, papers, correspondence, and other possessions. They were ordered before grand juries from October 5 - 12, potentially facing serious criminal charges for providing material support to terrorism.
The Grand Jury System
The American Bar Association (ABA) explains that grand juries review evidence to determine "whether there is probable cause to return an indictment." Critics, however, say they're rubber stamps for aggressive prosecutors.
The Constitution's Fifth Amendment "requires a grand jury indictment for federal criminal charges." In the federal system, they have "extraordinary investigative powers," developed since the 1950s. "This wide, sweeping, almost unrestricted power is the cause of much of the criticism," because prosecutors exploit it advantageously, manipulating proceedings for the outcomes they want, leaving targets unfairly vulnerable to indictments.
Though nominally independent, they only hear cases prosecutors choose. They also select witnesses, grant discretionary immunity, and do nearly all the questioning. Grand jury members may ask their own after witness testimonies, but their job is to judge what prosecutors present, then decide if enough evidence warrants indictment. In essence, the question is: "Supposing the prosecutors will be able to be able to prove everything they present to you, would they win a conviction?" It's tough to say "no" to that, and grad juries rarely do.
Proceedings are conducted in secret. Anyone may be subpoenaed, and must answer questions unless a specific privilege is claimed, such as lawyer/client or self-incrimination. In the federal system, lawyers can't represent their clients while testifying.
A person can't be tried for the same crime twice - the Constitution protects us us from "double jeopardy". But if a Grand Jury fails to return an indictment, there is nothing to stop the AG from convening another Grand Jury.
The ABA asks, "What protection does a target have against witnesses lying to the grand jury (perhaps for leniency on existing or threatened charges), or against the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence? None," except to challenge the evidence at trial.
Especially post-9/11, prosecutors manipulate Grand Jury proceedings to get the indictments they want, leaving targets vulnerable on their own. At fault is the system. It's rigged against them, so many are hung out to dry unfairly. That's what Chicago and Minneapolis anti-war/pro-Palestinian supporters now face, a tough road ahead if Justice Department officials are determined to convict.
Police State Thuggery
Post-9/11, an earlier article explained the path America chose, accessed through the following link: click here
Though well along earlier, the pace accelerated in the last decade. Obama has been as hard line as Bush, showing he's no different from America's worst-ever leaders. He may, in fact, be the most dangerous, because many liberals are loathe to criticize him, and because he has turned the rogue excesses of the Bush era into a bipartisan consensus.
Bush made America a police state; Obama hardened it. Some examples:
