Friday, October 28, 2022

SCOTUS deciding whether Lindsey Graham should have to testify before the grand jury

 CNN has a post about Justice Thomas' stay here.  

SCOTUS covers Graham's request for the stay.  And here is Georgia's response.

Of course, it's time to get rid of grand juries altogether.  They don't serve as protection for citizens in any respect and are simply a tool used by prosecutors to investigate and lock witnesses in.  A complete waste of resources if the goal is to act as a barrier between prosecutors and an indictment.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is ethically tricky for Justice Thomas. His wife has been the subject of questioning and investigation related to matters closely tied to the Graham testimony. I'm not sure that it is an actual conflict of interest, but there is an appearance of conflict of interest; and that should be enough for him to pass this off to another Justice.

Anonymous said...

So you favor the state one man grand jury approach? Otherwise, how are prosecutors supposed to collect evidence of criminal conduct?

Anonymous said...

Oh. you are going to get kicked out of the Pinko Liberals' club by suggesting that the actions of a wife should disqualify a husband.How dare that chattel express a view. But, hold it, it is O.K. because it serves the left wing narrative. Silly me.

Anonymous said...

If you did nothing wrong, then you would testify and not keep grasping at straws. There were criminal elements going on in GA and lots of recorded phone calls. Why are politicians not held to the same standards as us taxpayers and citizenry.

Anonymous said...

@4:29 has a lot of partisan angst. If you can let that go it’s really not that hard to see that a judge should not act in a way that creates the appearance of a conflict. Easy peasy. Lawyering 101.

Robert Kuntz said...

Without expressing an opinion on Justice Thomas or Senator Graham, let me just say, Anonymous @5:37 PM, that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is not the opinion I expected to find on a criminal defense or federal court blog today.

Your standard, if widely applied, would obviate the need for the Fourth and Fifth Amendments altogether, and render a good bit of Sixth superfluous, as well. Sure, that would make it simpler to jail and suppress those whom you dislike, and who can deny the attraction of that? Full marks for efficiency.

But one wonders how local blog hosts DOM and Rumpole would then make heir livings. I mean, I'm not paying them to read the blogs, so they need something to keep the lights on.