Jury tampering?

[LeftHander]

If the Grand Jury does not accept Fitz's indictments.

I will conclude that someone got to the jurors.

It is not the first time such a thing has happened.

If you think that they went to such lengths to start a war...simply paying off jurors or threatening them seems such a minor inconvienence. After all purjury is not really crime is it...?

I hate to say it....but If Bush and crew escape this investigation I will conclude that the neocons have won and they show they can control every aspect of government.

Syria will be bombed, Iran will be bombed....

This IS the tipping point folks.

We lose here America will be torn further apart and will do a slow death spiral into chaos.

[lse7581011]

1. I Hate To Agree With You

but I feel that this is a very strong possiblity. Not trying to be pessimistic just realistic.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

2. Well, all they need is 12 out of the 23. They would have to buy

off 12 people, which could be difficult. Of course when you can invent a fake war and rig an entire election, tampering would be a snap.

[liberal N proud]

6. But who says they would "buy" them off?

They could threaten them.
I saw an post earlier this week that indicated that a majority of the Grand Jury was from DC and minority. They or their family could be threatened by these thugs and then who knows.

[Jed Dilligan]

31. Buy or threaten...

People can be very tricky when you start trying to control them like puppets. Usually people buy one or two jurors. Twelve is an awful lot to juggle.

[WA98296]

3. Concerned. Don't ALL jurors have to vote in favor for this to fly?

[LeftHander]

4. Only 12....of 23

For indictments to be handed down.

[WA98296]

5. Forgive my dread considering this...but are you sure? I can't find info

[mmonk]

7. It's true

there's a link to a handbook for jurors around here someplace.

[WA98296]

9. Thank you guys...just anxiously nervous here..

[Spazito]

18. Here is the link to the hand book, 12 jurors needed re vote

for a 'bill' out of a minimum of 16 or the max of 23 jurors

http://www.moed.uscourts.gov/Jury/FederalHandbookForGrandJurors.pdf

See Page 5 at the bottom for the numbers.

Edited to add clarity.

[feelthebreeze]

10. I share your sense of the utmost importance of this moment...

This is the defining moment for our Democracy's continuance. I am not ashamed to admit a huge worry for today and the days that follow. But we are all here for the same thing, the belief and hope in the preservation of our Country's legacy of hope and freedom. I am choosing to fall on the side of good outcome. I look forward to smiling, when reading our grand children's history books. When they speak of these times and how the Nation survived I will think proudly of all of us who gave a damn, and pushed through.

[ramblin_dave]

14. WaPo says jury must be unanimous to indict?

"The grand jury, whose term expires Friday, is scheduled for a session today. Before a vote on an indictment, prosecutors typically leave the room so jurors can deliberate in private, and ask that the jury alert them when it has reached a decision.

Unlike the jury in a criminal trial, grand jurors are not weighing proof of guilt or innocence. They must decide whether there is probable cause to charge someone with a crime, and they must agree unanimously to indict. The prosecutor could seek to seal any indictments until he announces the charges."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR2005102502037_pf.html

[johnaries]

19. Not according to the Federal Grand Juror Handbook.

http://www.nynd.uscourts.gov/pdf/grandjur.pdf

"It should be remembered that at least 16 jurors must be present and
12 members must vote in favor of the indictment before it may be returned."
page 7, "Deliberations", paragraph 2

[dubyaD40web]

8. I read a story the other day about the GJ

It said the GJ was 75% black. Not that this is a race issue but remember W's* 2% approval status?

[KharmaTrain]

11. Do You Know The Jurors??

Have you ever served on a jury?

Do you have any idea of what this process is all about and all the time these 24 people have put in to listen to the evidence in this case?

Now when was the last time you know someone "got" to a grand jury? I need some good reading.

[LeftHander]

22. I didn't say it was occuring...

And it is difficult to find examples of jury tampering charges from a grand jury investigation...ussually claims of tampering come from those who were indicted. The prosecution has a strong influence over Grand Jury proceedings.

But tampering does exist in the from of popular pressure. The jurors are not sequestered and are open to recieve letters, phone calls and a hos t of propagand from our "liberal" media.

Bush and the GOP stating that "perjury is a technicality" is a clever form of tampering.

If you were sitting on the jury would you not consider that...? Given the amount of noise the GOP is spewing...

[KharmaTrain]

24. I've Been On A Federal Jury

In 2000, I served in a fairly high profile local straw man gun case. Being pro gun-control, I thought I didn't stand a chance to be called, but what resulted was a fascinating experience I strongly suggest to anyone who has the opportunity.

For two weeks, I'd go to the courthouse, sit in on the testimony, be admonished by the judge to not discuss the case with anyone and avoid any news coverage. In the courtroom sat several reporters and I later found out the case was getting some pretty strong coverage...more than I realized at the time.

Over the course of the trial I became very adept at all the laws involved and also began to know and bond with fellow jurors. While no one said a thing, we all knew how important the job we were doing and the only mention of the case was to keep listening with an open mind. It was an interesting positive re-inforcement.

In the end, I voted to acquit the defendent...a gun dealer...surely based on the evidence and the law. He had followed the laws and the problems were with the laws themselves. By the time we went into deliberations, we were so wrapped up in the laws and facts that outside noise meant little. In fact, I wouldn't even discuss the case with my wife as I felt I needed to maintain secrecy to maintain objectiveness.

I would figure Mr. Fitzgerald and the judges have worked closely with these jurors as well to ensure they kept their "heads in the case". If anything, any media distortion or manipulation, after two years of meeting, would become evident to someone. I would imagine that these jurors have invested so much time in this case...are in possesion of knowledge and facts the corporate media doesn't have and it would be difficult to taint them without it being noticed by a judge.

Look at the DeLay case...he tried to impeach the grand jury by trying to force their testimony into the open. No judge will do that...and it just pissed the jurors off even further.

Jury tampering always seems to work best when you have Al Pacino sitting in the hearing room and your brother from Italy is next to him. LOL.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. OMFG!

Jury tampering, vote tampering, blah blah blah. Either you win or someone else cheated. What a way to go through life.

I have no doubt you will "conclude" that. but Jesus that's stupid.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. Your initial assumption is tampering

You make it without evidence.

Clue phone: The mere existence of previous tampering in the world does not constitute evidence of tampering in THIS case, no more than the existence of thrown baseball games in the past proves that the Astros threw the game last night. That's how ridiculous your logic is. The burden is not on me to prove that there was NO tampering, but on you to prove that there was. At least, that's the way it would work reasonably.

More to the point, the psychology of "I win OR they cheated" is about as disturbing as any I've seen. I hope you don't convey such utter crap to your children, as it can lead only to destrutive cynicism and open warfare.

Finally, I ask you not to accuse me of freeperism, implicitly or otherwise. That is to say, I ask you to follow the rules of this board.

[LeftHander]

23. GOP echo chamber is a form of tampering

Most of the discussion I found on tampering grand juries is of a PR campaign either initiated by the prosecutor or in the form of those under threat of indictment. The legality of this type of tampering is questionable but it seems to be normal.

The GOP calling perjury a "technicality" and sending through all the media outlets that ultimately reach the jurors is a form of tampering. So are leaks to the press to sway public opinion.

ONe case in Alaska a phone hotline was set up to send messeages to grand jurists that the person in question was guilty. In that instance actual jury tampering charges were filed.

Jury tampering is a grey area. It is not just a envelope of cash, book deal or threats....it includes our whole media circus...

remember the echo chamber that the GOP has to sound off in is quite effective.

there is no doubt a lot of pressure on these jurors by npot only the prosecution but others to make or not make indictments.

More so in any "normal" grand jury.

As the results of this gradn jury could result in the fall of leadership.


As for being "freepish" the statement was freepish. Not you personally...I'm sure.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. LOL

Yeah, sure.

Lucky you're not in the business of prosecuting people, given your laughable definitions.

Your attempts to smear me as a freeper are pathetic and cowardly, by the way. Why not just have the courage of your convictions and just say it, instead of hiding behind mealy-mouthed implications?

[LeftHander]

29. I guess we will leave it at that then...

And let other "rational" discussions ensue...

As all we are doing is playing the "tombstone" game.

[Spurt]

13. I have every confidence....

...in Fitz watching over his jurors.

This man is very special. If there is a case there, he will deliver.

Now calm down please.
This idle speculation does no good for anyone.
Go get some fresh air.

[On the Road]

15. There's a Tradition That a Grand Jury Would Indict a Ham Sandwich

if the prosecutor asked them to. And these are no ham sandwiches we're dealing with. Getting the Grand Jury to indict is the least of the obstacles. But yes, if they mysteriously failed to indict, it would raise some questions.

[lonestarnot]

16. Not to worry on this....

[LostinVA]

17. This is a DC grand jury, right?

I personally believe the demographic makeup of DC will guarantee the jury will indictment any person Fitz asks them to indict. DC is strongly Democratic and minority -- not big fans of * and his lackies.

[TahitiNut]

26. An indictment that does not lead to a conviction is a waste.

If a grand jury sets the bar high enough that conviction is highly probable, I have some confidence that the prosecution will probably uncover further instances of indictable offenses. The identification and prosecution of wrong-doing does not come to an end with the expiration of this grand jury ... it would more likely come to an end with a failed prosecution ending in a failure to convict.

[Marr]

27. I don't think that's a fair assumption at all.

If the Grand Jury fails to indict, I will assume they found the case lacking.

[Catrina]

28. Normally, I would agree

and I have confidence that it will not happen in this case.

However, I agree with the OP that nothing is beyond these people. They have dreamed of this power they now have for decades. They have involved themselves in crimes to achieve their nefarious goals and destroyed many people along the way. If it were at all possible, I have no doubt they would do it.

I would even go so far as to say that they have thought about it. But, I think finally, they are at the end of the line, and to commit another crime, with the risk of a juror reporting any attempt at tampering (which may have happened, and may be one of the reasons for Fitzgerald's warning letter about anyone attempting to interfere with his investigation. I'm sure by now, he knows what he's dealing with) I don't think it will happen.

But, imo, they are capable of it. They started a war and lied to do it, without any regard for the loss of the lives they knew would result from it. Someone who can do that, is capable of anything. I do believe though, that like all other criminals, their crimes have finally caught up with them and they will choose the path of fighting furiously any charges brought against them, and smearing or destroying anyone who is responsible for their downfall.

[Marr]

33. Well, I'm sure they'd *love* to do it, but they've demonstrated a certain

... how shall I say it... "chickenshit nature". Yes, that's it.

They take very big risks with other peoples' skins, but they don't put their own skins on the line, ever. I remember reading an article in... I believe it was the Washington Post... about a year ago. The reporter asked some high level Bush Administration official (off the record, of course) why they hadn't simply snuck WMD into Iraq.

This unnamed official said that the idea was dicussed, but it never got out of the idle chat stage for one reason alone: there was a reasonable chance they'd be caught.

If they were caught jury tampering, they'd be in some seriously deep shit. And considering the fact that they'd have to turn more than half the jurors, the odds are good that they *would* be caught.

Anyway, I don't put any crime beneath these guys, but I don't think they ever put their own pampered asses at risk, ever. Especially when it's not the whole crew at risk. Much easier, and safer, to sell out a few colleagues.

[Catrina]

35. Couldn't agree with you more

they are in the end, cowards. And to get anyone to do this for them would be way too risky, you're definitely correct about that.

What bothers me is that Bush seems to be off the hook so far. Yet, I would bet he had a lot to do with much of the crimes they will go down for.

However, he will have a hard time looking like a 'strong leader' now, with his top officials engaged in lying about war, outing undercover agents etc. all without his knowledge. He may in the end be forced out of office, or someone among the chickenhawks may resent him getting off so lightly and to save their own skin, turn him in. We can dream.

[Norquist Nemesis]

30. I thought this was going to be about DeLay

He's trying to taint the jury pool on a nationwide basis then claim he can't get a fair trial any where but in Iraq.

[MojoXN]

32. Purjury isn't a crime...

But Perjury is! :evilgrin:

MojoXN

[LeftHander]

34. yeah....spelled wrong on purpose...

that's it....yesssss.....

clever....newkular....purjury....

(doh!)